LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 

CALIFORNIA 

SAN  DIEGO 


presented  to  the 
UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SAN  DIEGO 

by 


Dr.   Frederick  Schilling- 


t 


SCKIBNEK'S  POPULAK  RELIGIOUS  SEEIES 


VOLUMES  NOW  READY 

ST.  PAUL'S  CONCEPTION  OP  CHEISTIANITY.    By  Prof.  A.  B.  Brnce,  D JX 

THE  PLACE  OF  CHRIST  IN  MODERN  THEOLOGY.    By  Prof.  Rev.  A.  M.  Fairbairn, 

M.A.,  D.D. 

THE  BEGINNINGS  OP  CHRISTIANITY.    By  Prof.  George  P.  Fisher,  D.D. 
THE  UNITY  OP  THE  BOOK  OP  GENESIS.    By  Prof.  William  H.  Green,  DJ).,  LL.D. 
THE  LIFE  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER.    By  Julius  Kostlin. 
WHAT  is  THE  BIBLE?    By  Prof.  George  T.  Ladd,  D.D. 
THE  PROBLEM  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.    By  Prof.  James  Orr,  D.D. 
THE  THEORY  OP  PREACHING.    By  Prof.  Austin  Phelps,  DJD. 
THE  EVIDENCE  OP  CHRISTIAN  EXPERIENCE.    By  Prof.  Louis  F.  Stearns,  DJ). 
THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY.    By  Prof.  George  B.  Stevens,  PhD.,  D.D. 

Price  90  cents  each  net.     Postage  10  cents  per  copy  additional. 


THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 


THE 

PAULINE   THEOLOGY 

A  STUDY  OF  THE 

ORIGIN  AND   CORRELATION 

OF 

THE  DOCTRINAL  TEACHINGS  OF  THE 
APOSTLE  PAUL 


BY 


GEORGE  BARKER  STEVENS,  PH.D.,  D.D. 

DWIGHT    PROFESSOR    OF    SYSTEMATIC    THEOLOGY 
IN    YALE    UNIVERSITY 


REVISED   EDITION 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S  SONS 
1911 


Copyright,  1892,  By 
CHARLES  SCBIBNEB'S  SONS. 


TO 

THE   THEOLOGICAL   FACULTY    OF    THE 
UNIVERSITY    OF    JENA 

THIS    VOLUME    IS    DEDICATED 

IN  GRATEFUL  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  OF  THE  DEGREE  OP 

DOCTOR  OP  THEOLOGY  CONFERRED  BY  THEM 

AND  AS  A  TOKEN  OF  CORDIAL 

PERSONAL  REGARD 


PREFACE 

THE  Apostolic  Age  must  always  possess  a  peculiar 
interest  for  the  student  of  Christian  history  and 
theology.  In  the  study  of  that  period  we  come  into 
contact  with  the  men  who,  filled  with  love  for  Christ 
and  with  zeal  for  his  truth  and  kingdom,  so  largely 
shaped  the  life  of  the  early  Church,  and  left  their 
impress  upon  Christianity  for  subsequent  ages.  The 
most  noteworthy  example  of  such  a  moulding  influ- 
ence, in  both  its  immediate  and  its  remote  effects, 
is  found  in  the  apostle  Paul.  The  native  qualities  of 
the  man,  the  remarkable  transformation  by  which  he 
was  changed  from  a  persecutor  into  a  champion  of 
the  gospel,  and  his  great  achievements  as  a  preacher 
and  writer,  —  all  unite  to  invest  his  career  with  ex- 
ceptional interest  and  importance. 

The  constantly  increasing  literature  which  treats 
of  the  apostle's  life  and  theology,  or  of  special  prob- 
lems connected  with  his  teaching,  attests  the  unfail- 
ing interest  with  which  the  modern  world  regards 
the  man  and  his  work.  Whether  his  teaching  is 
thought  to  have  been  grossly  perverted  in  the 
Church,  as  by  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold;  or  is  held  to 


viii  PREFACE 

have  been  unduly  influential,  especially  among  Pro- 
testants, as  by  M.  Renan,  —  he  still  continues  to  be 
studied  with  the  closest  attention  by  exegetes,  his- 
torians, theologians,  and  literati  of  all  shades  of 
opinion,  as  the  master-inind  of  his  age  and  the  pioneer 
par  Eminence  in  Christian  thought. 

The  aim  which  I  have  set  before  me  in  this  volume 
has  been  to  inquire  into  the  genesis  of  Paul's  leading 
thoughts,  so  far  as  their  origin  may  be  the  subject  of 
historical  inquiry,  to  define  critically  their  content 
and  relation  to  each  other,  and  thus  to  present  a  sys- 
tematic account  of  his  teaching  upon  the  great  themes 
which  he  considers.  Not  every  topic  which  finds 
place  in  his  epistles  has  been  made  the  subject  of 
discussion.  I  trust,  however,  that  no  important 
topic,  none  which  is  essential  in  the  organism  of 
his  thoughts,  has  been  overlooked.  The  study,  it  is 
ho*ped,  will  afford  the  reader  some  aid  in  determining 
how  far  that  set  of  convictions  which  he  so  firmly 
cherished  and  defended  may  be  regarded  as  furnish- 
ing the  materials  for  a  theological  system.  The 
effort  has  been  made  to  discriminate  between  that 
which  Paul  may  be  shown  by  strict  exegesis  to  have 
taught  and  those  inferences  which  may  be  thought 
to  be  involved  in  his  affirmations. 

The  references  to  the  literature  of  the  subject  which 
are  given  throughout  the  volume  may  serve  to  indi- 
cate, in  a  general  way,  my  obligations  to  other  writers 
on  the  Pauline  Theology.  Apart  from  critical  helps 


PREFACE  ix 

in  the  study  of  the  epistles  of  Paul,  I  am  most  largely 
indebted  to  four  authors,  —  Neander,  whose  work  on 
The  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Christian  Church, 
although  not  in  all   points   abreast  of   recent  criti- 
cism, has  been  of  the   greatest  service  in  opening 
to  me  the  spiritual  depths  of  the  apostle's  thoughts; 
Weiss,  whose  Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament* 
with  its   severe   exegetical    method,  I   have   always 
found  useful,  especially  in  regard  to  intricate  ques- 
tions of  interpretation  ;  Pfleiderer,  whose  treatise  Der 
Paulinismus   (as   also  his   later  work   entitled,  Das 
Urchristenthum)   I  have   studied   with    the    keenest 
interest.     Der  Paulinismus  is  the  most  stimulating 
treatise  which  I  have  ever  read  on  the  subject ;  and 
none  has  given  me  more  assistance,  although,  as  will 
be  seen,  I  have  differed  often  and  widely  from  its 
conclusions.     It  gives  me  pleasure  thus  to  acknowl- 
edge my  continued   obligation   to   the   distinguished 
scholars,  Professors  Weiss  and  Pfleiderer,  whose  in- 
struction I  enjoyed  in  former  years.     It  remains  to 
mention  the  treatise  of  Professor  Lipsius,  of  Jena, 
Die  paulinische  Rechtfertigungslehre,  u.  s.  w.,  which 
I  have  carefully  read  and  should  have  more  frequently 
quoted  had  I  not  been  informed  that  the  author  has 
modified,  in  important  respects,  the  views  therein  ex- 
pressed.    Whether  one   concurs  with  the   positions 
taken  by  him  in  this  volume  or  not,  it  cannot  but 

1  Lehrbuch  der  biblischen   Theologie  des  Neuen   Testamentt. 
5  Auflage.    Berlin,  1888. 


X  PREFACE 

be  profitable  to  read  so  skilful  a  piece  of  exegesis 
and  so  discriminating  an  analysis  of  Paul's  religious 
conceptions. 

In  quoting  Neander's  Planting  and  Training  of  the 
Christian  Church,  I  have  referred  to  both  the  English 
(Bohn)  and  the  American  editions  of  Ryland's  trans- 
lation. The  American  edition  by  Dr.  E.  G.  Robinson 
(which  is  a  careful  revision  of  the  English  edition) 
is  decidedly  preferable.  The  references  to  Weiss's 
Biblical  Theology  are  to  the  fifth  German  edition,  and 
I  refer  to  sections  and  subdivisions,  rather  than  to 
pages,  for  the  convenience  of  those  who  may  wish  to 
consult  the  translation  (made  from  the  third  edition). 
Where  the  notation  is  not  the  same  in  the  original 
and  in  the  translation,  I  have  added  references  to  the 
volume  and  page  of  the  latter.  Pfleiderer's  Der 
Paulinismus  is  cited  from  the  revised  (second)  edi- 
tion, unless  it  is  otherwise  indicated,  and  correspond- 
ing references  to  the  English  translation  (made  from 
the  first  edition)  are  added. 

I  have  appended  to  this  volume  a  select  bibliography 
—  omitting  the  familiar  works  on  the  Life  of  Paul  — 
which,  while  making  no  claim  to  completeness,  will 
guide  the  student  to  the  literature  which  he  will  be 
likely  to  find  most  directly  useful  in  the  study  of 
Paul's  thoughts. 

I  wish  to  express  my  obligation  to  my  colleagues 
Professors  George  P.  Fisher  and  Frank  C.  Porter, 
who  have  given  me  many  useful  suggestions  respect- 


PREFACE  xi 

ing  the  subjects  which  I  have  discussed,  and  have 
kindly  assisted  me  in  the  correction  of  the  proof- 
sheets. 

I  offer  this  work  to  the  public  in  the  hope  that  it 
may  contribute  to  a  clearer  understanding,  and  to  a 
more  cordial  reception,  of  the  truths  to  the  defence 
and  propagation  of  which  the  great  apostle  devoted 

his  life. 

G.  B.  S. 

YALE  UNIVERSITY, 
Dec.  1,  1891. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.     THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  AND  ITS  RELA- 
TION TO  HIS    MISSION   AND    THEOLOGY  .       .  1 

II.     PAUL'S  STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT      .  27 

III.  THE  SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING  52 

IV.  THE  SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE      .     .  75 
V.     THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 96 

VI.     THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN 123 

VII.     THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW 160 

VIII.     THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST 199 

IX.     THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION     ....  227 

X.     THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION  .     .     .     .  259 

XI.     THE   CHRISTIAN   LIFE 292 

XII.     THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH    .     .     .     .  319 

XIII.     THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY 339 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 369 

INDEX  OF  TEXTS 373 

GENERAL  INDEX  .     .  .     .          .  .     .    377 


THE   PAULINE   THEOLOGY 


CHAPTER  I 

THE    CONVERSION    OP    PAUL    AND    ITS    RELATION    TO    HIS 
MISSION  AND   THEOLOGY 

No  man  exercised  so  powerful  an  influence  upon 
the  thought  and  life  of  the  early  Church  as  the  apostle 
Paul.  This  fact  is,  no  doubt,  due  in  large  part  to 
his  native  enthusiasm  and  energy.  Throwing  his 
whole  soul  into  any  cause  which  he  espoused,  he 
proved  as  vigorous  and  efficient  in  the  character  of 
a  champion  as  he  had  formerly  been  in  that  of  a 
persecutor  of  Christianity.  The  intellectual  gifts 
of  the  apostle  were  also  highly  favorable  to  his  in- 
fluence. He  took  a  clear  and  strong  hold  upon 
principles.  He  defined  his  convictions  sharply, 
cherished  them  intensely,  and  carried  them  out 
consistently  in  action.  His  mind,  by  nature  and 
education  conscientious  and  religious,  was  especially 
adapted  to  define  the  characteristic  truths  of  Chris- 
tianity, defend  them  from  the  errors  which  threat- 
ened to  corrupt  them,  and  give  them  currency  and 
prevalence  in  the  Christian  world. 


2  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

But  neither  the  apostle's  dialectic  power  nor  his 
native  executive  abilities  suffice  to  explain  his  un- 
exampled influence  and  services.  His  own  language 
expressly  refutes  such  an  explanation.  His  work  is 
not  a  mere  achievement  of  human  powers,  the  tri- 
umph of  genius,  or  the  sweeping  success  of  fiery  enthu- 
siasm. There  lies  at  the  basis  of  his  conception  of 
his  mission  and  of  his  entire  religious  consciousness 
an  intense  conviction  of  a  divine  call  to  his  work 
and  of  a  divine  equipment  for  it.  He  is  a  called 
apostle  (Rom.  i.  1),  set  apart  to  the  work  of  winning 
the  Gentiles  to  faith  in  Christ;  his  commission  is 
from  above  (Gal.  i.  12);  he  describes  himself  as 
apprehended  by  Christ  (Phil.  iii.  12).  His  native 
endowments  were  elevated  and  directed  by  a  revela- 
tion of  Christ  which  contained  for  him  at  once  the 
call  to  his  mission  and  the  perpetual  inspiration  for 
its  accomplishment. 

We  must  therefore  penetrate  beneath  these  more 
obvious  sources  of  power  in  the  apostle  Paul,  and  seek 
the  explanation  of  his  thought  and  work  in  the  sphere 
of  religious  conviction  and  experience.  To  attribute 
his  spiritual  history  to  the  play  within  himself  of 
religious  emotion  and  conscientious  scruples  is  either 
to  misunderstand  him,  or  is  equivalent  to  charging 
Mm  with  wholly  misunderstanding  himself.  It  has 
in  modern  times  become  common  to  explain  the  con- 
version of  Paul  as  a  psychological  process,  treating 
the  threefold  narrative  of  it  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles as  the  objective  form  which  the  experience  as- 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  3 

sumed  in  his  mind,  or  as  the  development  of  Chris- 
tian tradition.  Baur  and  Strauss  sought  to  explain 
his  conversion  as  a  change  which  was  gradually 
brought  about  in  his  mind  by  reflection  upon  the  argu- 
ments by  which  the  Christians  endeavored  to  prove 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  and  by  the  moral  impres 
sions  produced  by  the  language  and  temper  of  the 
dying  Stephen.1  With  this  explanation  Baur  did 
not,  however,  remain  satisfied,  and  he  later  con- 
fessed that  no  psychological  or  dialectic  analysis  can 
unfold  the  secret  of  Paul's  conversion.2  Later  writ- 
ers, such  as  Holsten  and  Pfleiderer,3  following,  in 
general,  the  lines  marked  out  by  Baur,  present  a 
more  detailed  account  of  the  process  through  which 
Paul  passed,  and  make  the  starting-point  of  the 
change  not  so  much  a  moral  impression  as  a  slowly 
maturing  intellectual  conviction  that  the  Christian 
way  of  attaining  righteousness  was  after  all  the  true 
one.  This  conviction  was  developed,  according  to 
Pfleiderer,  by  reflection  upon  the  Pharisaic  expecta- 
tion of  the  near  advent  of  the  Messiah,  upon  the  fact 
that  his  coming  presupposed  a  righteous  people  which 

1  Baur,  Paulus,  i.  68  sq.     Strauss,  Leben  Jesu  fur  d.  deutsche 
Volk,  p.  33. 

2  Kirchengeschichte  d.  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderte,  p.  45. 

8  See,  for  example,  Holsten,  Die  Christusvision  des  Paulus 
u.  s.  w.,  in  Zum  Evangelium  des  Paulus  u.  des  Petrus,  p.  65  sq.  ; 
Pfleiderer,  Paulinismus,  p.  7  sq.  (Eng.  tr.  i.  11  sq.).  For  a  detailed 
analysis  and  acute  critique  of  Pfleiderer's  theory,  see  an  article 
by  Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce  on  Paul's  Conversion  and  the  Pauline  Gospel, 
in  the  Presbyterian  Review  for  October,  1880,  p.  652  sq. 


4  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  law-system  seemed  powerless  to  secure,  and  upon 
the  confident  assertion  by  the  Christians  of  the  objec- 
tive resurrection  of  Jesus.  These  ideas  combined  to 
suggest  a  new  solution  of  the  problem  of  religion 
which  accorded  in  a  remarkable  manner  with  the 
Christian  teaching.  It  needed  but  the  ecstasy 
which  Paul  calls  his  revelation,  and  which  he  re- 
garded as  an  objective  manifestation  to  'him  of  the 
risen  Jesus,  to  confirm  his  mind  in  this  new  view  of 
the  way  of  salvation  by  divine  grace  through  trust  in 
the  Crucified  and  Risen  One.  The  method  of  this 
reflection  is  thus  sketched :  "  What  if  perhaps  the 
Messianic  righteousness,  which  the  Pharisee  postu- 
lated as  the  condition  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom, 
were  not  to  be  understood  at  all  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  a  human  fulfilling  of  the  law,  but  consisted  in  a 
gift  of  God  which  could  be  procured  in  no  other  way 
than  through  the  new  means  of  salvation  which  was 
offered  by  the  Messiah's  atoning  death  ?  "  1 

This  type  of  theory  finds  in  the  process  of  Paul's 
conversion  the  germs  of  his  whole  doctrine.  The 
crisis  is  reached  in  the  very  midst  of  his  persecuting 
activity,  during  which,  however,  he  was  affected  by 
scruples  as  to  the  correctness  of  his  course,  and  on 
this  account  strove  the  harder  to  stifle  the  growing 
conviction  of  the  truth  of  Christianity  by  intensifying 
his  outward  opposition  to  it.  On  this  view  there 
must  have  been  a  considerable  period  during  which 
he  was  halting  and  doubting.  Whatever  the  nature 
1  Paulinismus,  p.  12  (Eng.  tr.  i.  12). 


THE   CONVERSION   OF  PAUL  5 

of  the  event  that  happened  on  the  way  to  Damascus, 
or  whether  there  really  was  any  such  objective  occur- 
rence as  is  related,  the  turning-point  in  his  career 
merely  marks  the  logical  result  of  increasing  dis- 
satisfaction with  himself  and  his  course  as  a  Pharisee, 
and  of  deepening  impressions  concerning  the  truth 
of  Christianity. 

It  is  obvious  that  if  this  explanation  is  correct, 
we  must  suppose  that  when  the  crisis  was  reached, 
Saul  had  already  formed  an  opinion,  more  or  less 
clearly  defined,  that  faith  in  Jesus,  and  not  the  per- 
formance of  deeds  of  obedience  to  the  law,  was  the 
true  way  of  attaining  salvation.  His  most  charac- 
teristic tenet,  —  the  germ-truth  which  enfolded  his 
whole  system,  —  that  faith  and  not  works  is  the  prin- 
ciple of  salvation,  was  wrought  out  by  him  in  reflec- 
tion upon  the  facts  concerning  the  life,  death,  and 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  the  truth  of  which  the  Chris- 
tians alleged,  and  upon  the  Old  Testament  proofs  by 
which  they  were  wont  to  support  these  claims.  Thus 
Paul's  conversion  is  regarded  not  as  an  abrupt  begin- 
ning, but  as  marking  a  gradual  inward  transformation 
of  opinion  and  feeling.  If  this  is  true,  then  we  may 
find  already  present  in  this  event,  awaiting  but  de- 
velopment and  application  to  life,  those  character- 
istic convictions  and  forces  which  suffice  to  explain 
the  apostle's  career. 

It  is  certainly  an  interesting  and  commendable 
feature  of  this  mode  of  explanation  that  it  seeks  to 
find  some  inner  connection  between  Paul's  conver- 


6  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

sion  and  his  life  before  and  after  it.  It  is  a  psycho- 
logical impossibility  that  his  conversion  should  have 
been  due  to  external  causes  alone,  and  should  have 
had  no  internal  point  of  contact  with  the  course  of 
his  previous  life  up  to  the  moment  of  its  occurrence. 
It  is  inconceivable  that  an  external  miracle  alone 
should  have  transformed  a  man  of  Saul's  fiery  temper 
and  firmness  of  conviction  from  a  Pharisee  into  a 
Christian,  if  indeed  such  a  miracle  can  in  any  case 
be  conceived  of  as  by  itself  effecting  an  inner  spir- 
itual revolution.1  The  problem  is  to  detect  and 
define  this  point  of  connection.  It  will  first  be 
proper  to  inquire  whether  the  subtle  and  ingenious 
psychological  theories  which  have  been  referred  to 
can  be  successfully  applied. 

We  possess  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  three  de- 
tailed narratives  of  the  conversion  of  Paul, —  one  by 
the  writer,  Luke  (chap.  ix. ),  and  two  by  Paul  himself 
(chaps,  xxii.,  xxvi. ).  These  chapters,  together  with 
certain  allusions  to  the  subject  and  to  his  spiritual 
history  in  Paul's  epistles,  constitute  our  only  docu- 
mentary evidence  for  determining  the  nature  of  the 
event  and  its  relation  to  the  development  of  his 
inner  life.  The  picture  which  these  narratives  pre- 
sent to  our  view  is  not  obscured  by  the  minor  differ- 
ences which  exist  among  the  three  accounts,  but  is 
a  clear  and  vivid  one.2  The  zealous  persecutor  and 

1  Cf,  Neander,  Planting  and  Training,  Bohn  ed.  i.  89 ;  Am.  ed. 
p.  91. 

2  In  Acts  xxvi.  the  interview  with  Ananias  is  omitted ;  in 
chapter  xxii.  it  is  narrated,  but  the  occasion  of  Ananias's  going  to 


THE  CONVERSION  OP  PAUL  7 

his  companions,  equipped  with  a  commission  from 
the  Sanhedrin,  are  arrested  in  their  journey  across 
the  desert  toward  Damascus  by  a  supernatural  ap- 
pearance to  them  of  the  glorified  Christ.  This  reve- 
lation was  accompanied  by  external  phenomena  which 
dazzled  the  senses  and  profoundly  impressed  the  mind 
of  Saul.  To  this  experience,  and  to  no  other  cause 
or  occasion,  he  uniformly  refers  his  conversion.  It 
marked  the  crisis  of  his  life.  This  fact  is  not  altered 
even  on  the  view  that  his  experience  was  really  a 
vision,  —  a  clear  and  convincing  inner  view  of  the 
exalted  Messiah.  Upon  this  hypothesis,  as  well  as 
upon  the  ordinary  view,  the  revelation  of  Christ  to 
the  soul  of  the  persecutor  remains  the  efficient  cause 
of  the  transformation.1  Whether  he  was  converted 

Saul  is  not  stated ;  in  chapter  ix.  the  Lord  is  represented  as 
speaking  to  him  and  bidding  him  go,  and  it  is  affirmed  that  at  the 
same  time  Saul  had  a  vision  of  his  coming.  In  chap.  xxii.  the  address 
is  considerably  more  extended  than  in  chap.  ix.  Minor  points 
of  difference  have  been  noted ;  for  example,  in  ix.  7  we  are  told  that 
Saul's  companions  heard  the  voice,  but  saw  no  man,  while  in  xxii.  9, 
it  is  said  that  they  saw  the  light,  but  heard  not  the  voice  of  him 
who  spake.  The  discrepancy  is  sometimes  resolved  by  translating 
rJKovcrav  (xxii.  9)  "  understood,"  —  an  admissible  rendering.  The 
constant  factors  in  all  accounts  are,  the  light  from  heaven,  the 
voice  of  Jesus,  Saul's  answer,  and  the  solemn  charge  commission- 
ing Paul  to  bear  the  name  of  Christ  to  the  Gentiles.  Even  if  the 
differences  be  regarded  as  irreconcilable,  it  is  an  unwarranted 
procedure  in  criticism  to  reject  the  common  matter  of  the  various 
narratives  and  deny  their  historical  character,  upon  the  ground 
of  such  incidental  variations  in  the  traditions  in  which  a  great 
and  mysterious  experience  has  been  preserved. 
1  Cf.  Weiss,  The  Life  of  Christ,  iii.  410,  411. 


8  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

by  an  inward  vision  of  Christ,  a  manifestation  in  the 
spiritual  sphere  only,  or  by  a  revelation  accompanied 
by  supernatural  light  and  voices,  is  a  question  which, 
while  it  affects  the  historical  character  of  the  narra- 
tives in  Acts,  does  not  essentially  concern  the  prob- 
lem of  the  relation  of  the  experience  on  the  way  to 
Damascus  to  his  spiritual  history.  Whatever  im- 
portance may  attach  to  external  phenomena  in  the 
case,  it  is  certain  that  chief  emphasis  must  be  laid 
upon  that  disclosure  of  Christ  as  the  enthroned  King 
which,  whatever  its  method,  was  made  to  his  spirit. 
It  was  the  manifestation  of  the  risen  Lord  in  this 
aspect  of  it  upon  which  Paul,  no  doubt,  laid  chief 
emphasis, —  the  aTroKaXv^ris  ev  epol  (Gal.  i.  16)  to 
which  he  referred  back  as  the  decisive  cause  of  his 
conversion  and  the  effective  inspiration  of  his  mission 
as  a  preacher.1 

Does  Paul,  in  his  allusions  to  his  conversion,  con- 
template this  revelation  of  Christ  to  him  as  the  initial 
point  of  his  change  of  life  ?  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  three  narratives  assume  this  to  be  the  case. 
Up  to  this  moment  he  is  depicted  as  a  persecutor, 

1  It  should  be  added  that  the  expression  eV  e/uot  gives  no  war- 
rant for  discrediting  the  testimony  of  the  narratives  in  Acts  to 
the  occurrence  of  external  events  upon  the  occasion  in  question. 
The  only  proper  inference  from  this  expression  is  that  in  think- 
ing of  his  conversion  as  a  divinely  effected  transformation  Paul 
lays  chief  stress  on  the  inward  revelation  of  Christ  to  him.  But 
this  he  would  do  in  any  case,  since  his  conversion,  by  whatever 
events  attended,  would  be  primarily  connected  with  his  new  view 
of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  not  with  any  outward  circumstances. 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL 

bent  upon  the  extermination  of  the  Christians.  No 
hint  is  anywhere  given  that  he  had  any  scruple  or 
hesitation  as  to  the  justification  of  his  course.  The 
only  expression  which  can  be  adduced  as  indicating 
such  scruple  on  his  part  is  that  of  the  heavenly  voice : 
"  Saul,  Saul,  why  persecutest  thou  me  ?  it  is  hard  for 
thee  to  kick  against  the  goad  "  (Acts  xxvi.  14).  These 
words  are  thought  by  some  to  imply  that  Saul  was 
engaged  in  a  conflict  with  his  conscience,  which,  like 
a  goad,  was  urging  him  toward  an  opposite  course  of 
action.1  But  the  figure  of  the  goad,  both  in  itself 
and  in  its  use,  more  appropriately  refers  to  forces 
outside  oneself,  as  to  the  will  or  efforts  of  another, 
than  to  the  subjective  state  of  hesitancy  from  scruple. 
Most  interpreters  accordingly  agree  that  the  meaning 
here  is :  It  is  vain  and  ineffectual  for  you  to  resist 
my  will  and  purpose  regarding  the  progress  of  my 
Church.  This  interpretation  alone  harmonizes  with 
the  statement  in  the  same  account  of  his  conversion : 
"I  verily  thought  with  myself  that  I  ought  to  do 
many  things  contrary  to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth "  (Acts  xxvi.  9).  He  avows  before  the  Jewish 
council  that  he  had  lived  in  all  good  conscience  until 
that  day  (Acts  xxiii.  1).  It  is  true  that  he  blames 
himself  severely  for  his  career  as  a  persecutor 
(1  Cor.  xv.  9) ;  the  memory  of  it  gives  him  a  sense 
of  unworthiness  to  bear  the  name  of  an  apostle, 
and  he  counts  the  conversion  of  such  a  persecutor 

1  So  Pfleiderer,  Urchristenthum,  p.  36.     Also :  The  Influence 
of  the  Apostle  Paul  on  the  Development  of  Christianity,  p.  29. 


10  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

a  miracle  of  grace.  But  that  career  appeared  so 
hateful  to  him  only  after  he  became  a  Christian  ; 
he  does  not  intimate  that  it  had  appeared  so  in 
the  least  previous  to  his  becoming  a  Christian.  His 
ignorance  during  his  persecution  is  regarded  as 
affording  a  certain  mitigation  of  his  guilt,  and 
as  a  reason  for  his  obtaining  mercy;  but  he  ex- 
pressly couples  it  with  the  unbelief  in  the  blind- 
ness of  which  his  work  of  persecution  was  carried 
on  (1  Tim.  i.  18). l 

There  is  thus  no  hint  of  any  hesitation  in  his 
course,  or  of  any  gradually  changing  convictions 
regarding  the  claims  of  Jesus;  all  the  testimony 
which  bears  upon  the  subject  implies  the  contrary. 
He  was,  to  the  end  of  his  course  as  a  persecutor, 
firm,  persevering,  and  conscientious  in  his  efforts  to 
exterminate  Christianity.  His  statements  in  Gala- 
tians  (chap.  i. ),  which  give  the  fullest  account  of  the 
origin  and  authentication  of  his  apostolic  office,  con- 
firm indirectly,  though  not  less  clearly,  the  same 
conclusion.  He  did  not  receive  his  gospel  —  whose 
central  principle  was  salvation  by  faith  in  Christ  — 
from  any  human  source,  but  "  through  revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ "  (i.  12).  He  then  alludes  to  his  perse- 
cutions of  the  Christians  in  the  zeal  and  intensity  of 
which  he  had  surpassed  others  (verses  13,  14).  He 
implies  that  during  this  time  he  was  inaccessible  to 

1  I  am  here  assuming  the  genuineness  of  1  Timothy.  This 
disputed  subject  receives  brief  consideration  in  a  subsequent 
chapter. 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  11 

the  action  of  any  human  agencies  which  could  have 
resulted  in  his  acceptance  of  the  gospel;  "but,"  he 
adds,  "  when  it  was  the  good  pleasure  of  God  ...  to 
reveal  his  Son  in  me  that  I  might  preach  him  among 
the  Gentiles,  I  conferred  not,"  etc.  (verses  15,  16). 
As  a  persecutor  his  life  was  closed  to  human  influ- 
ences ;  it  was  only  when  God  made  a  signal  revela- 
tion of  his  Son  in  him  that  his  course  was  changed.1 
That  by  the  "revelation"  here  spoken  of  is  meant 
that  unveiling  of  Christ  to  his  inner  eye  which 
occurred  in  the  experience  on  the  road  to  Damas- 
cus, is  rendered  probable  by  his  mentioning  it  in 
connection  with  other  definite  events.  After  that 
revelation,  he  says,  he  did  not  go  up  to  Jerusalem, 
but  went  into  Arabia  and  returned  to  Damascus. 
Additional  probability  is  lent  to  this  conclusion  by 
the  definite  way  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  appear- 
ance of  Christ  to  him,  classing  it  among  those  to 
the  original  apostles  (1  Cor.  xv.  8),  and  by  the  way 
in  which  he  connects  his  apostleship  with  his  having 
seen  the  Lord  (1  Cor.  ix.  1).  This  appearance  and 
this  sight  of  Christ  can  only  refer  to  the  event 
which  happened  near  Damascus.  Therefore  to  this 
event  the  apostle  definitely  refers  back  as  the  initial 
point  of  his  apostleship,  the  occasion  on  which  a 
special  disclosure  of  Christ  to  him  accomplished 
what  no  human  force  could  have  done,  — his  trans- 
formation from  an  ardent  persecutor  to  an  equally 
zealous  Christian  apostle. 

1  Cf.  Weiss,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  i.  153  (§  13,  2). 


12  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

If,  then,  no  place  can  be  vindicated  in  Paul's 
history  for  a  gradual  change  of  opinion  regarding 
the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  the  question  arises,  what 
is  that  point  of  connection  between  the  revelation 
made  to  him  and  his  own  inner  spiritual  life  which 
it  seems  necessary  to  find  in  order  to  relieve  the 
change  of  its  otherwise  magical  appearance,  and 
without  which  it  seems  impossible  that  any  exter- 
nal manifestation  to  him  should  have  been  at  the 
same  time  an  inward  revelation  of  truth  to  his 
spirit  ? 

In  Rom.  vii.  7-25  the  apostle  describes  a  certain 
inner  conflict  of  principles  under  the  first  person. 
It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  this  description  refers, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  to  his  own  life.  The 
description  is  of  one  who  under  the  operation  of 
the  Old  Testament  law  has  been  awakened  to  a  sense 
of  his  sin  and  of  his  need  of  forgiveness  and  renewal. 
The  picture  is  drawn  in  order  to  obviate  the  objec- 
tion to  the  previous  argument  that  since  the  law 
cannot  justify,  but  only  intensifies  the  consciousness 
of  sin,  it  must  itself  be  sinful.  To  this  the  apostle 
replies  by  a  concrete  representation  of  the  service 
which  the  law  renders  in  disclosing  their  sinfulness 
to  men  and  thereby  preparing  them  to  accept  the  way 
of  salvation  offered  through  Christ.  When  the  law 
comes  and  lays  upon  them  its  demands,  men  become 
aware  of  their  failure  to  meet  the  divine  require- 
ments, and  their  real  sinfulness,  of  which  they  had 
before  been  unconscious,  is  disclosed  to  them.  Thus 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  13 

arises  a  conflict  in  the  soul  between  the  moral  pur- 
pose to  keep  the  law  and  the  hindering  power  of  sin, 
which  is  now  seen  to  exert  itself  with  fearful  energy. 
Two  opposing  laws  seek  to  control  the  life ,  —  the  "  law 
of  the  mind  "  (o  vopos  rov  1/069,  verse  23),  the  right 
moral  intention  and  purpose,  and  "the  law  of  sin 
which  is  in  the  members  "  (o  J/O/AOS  TT}?  a^aprtW  6 
&v  ev  rot?  (j,e\,eaiv),  the  natural  impulses  and  pas- 
sions. The  latter  triumphs,  and  the  soul  cries  out, 
"  Who  shall  deliver  me  ?  "  (verse  24),  when  the  joy- 
ous answer  comes,  "I  thank  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord"  (verse  25). 

This  narrative  reflects  Paul's  own  moral  history. 
He  had  passed  through  this  moral  struggle,  and  ex- 
perienced this  sense  of  defeat  in  his  best  aspirations. 
It  was  only  the  manifestation  of  Christ  in  his  true 
character  as  the  Saviour  from  overmastering  sin  that 
terminated  the  conflict  and  brought  harmony  and  peace 
into  his  life.  I  believe  that  it  is  in  the  experience 
thus  depicted  that  we  are  to  find  the  point  of  con- 
tact between  his  sudden  conversion  and  his  previous 
career.  This  inner  conflict,  with  its  resulting  sense 
of  failure  and  sin,  was,  in  an  important  sense,  a  prep- 
aration for  his  conversion,  and  made  the  revelation 
of  Christ  to  him  productive  of  a  radical  change  in  his 
disposition  and  conduct.  The  anxiety  and  unrest 
which  sprang  from  his  unavailing  efforts  to  find  a 
sense  of  security  and  peace  through  deeds  of  legal 
obedience  deepened  the  yearnings  of  his  spiritual 
nature,  intensified  the  sense  of  his  own  ill-desert 


14  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

before  God,  and  thus  negatively,  at  least,  prepared 
his  mind  to  welcome,  if  not  to  seek,  some  new 
ground  of  hope.  The  passage  in  no  way  intimates 
that  the  course  of  his  thought  during  this  unhappy 
experience  went  so  far  as  to  lead  him  to  turn  to 
Christ  for  a  possible  solution  of  his  difficulty.  To 
suppose  that  this  was  the  case  would  be  contrary 
to  the  true  interpretation  of  the  passage  previously 
considered,  and  without  warrant  in  the  chapter  under 
review.  Christ  appears  on  the  scene  only  when  the 
struggle  has  ended  in  Saul's  defeat  and  despair. 
The  law  holds  its  devotee,  throughout  the  whole 
conflict  and  at  the  end,  with  an  unrelaxed  hand. 
There  is  an  increasingly  intense  realization  of  its 
binding  force  and  of  the  necessity  of  obeying  it  in 
order  to  be  saved;  but  the  more  this  is  felt,  the 
more  clearly  is  the  failure  felt,  and  the  more  uncon- 
querable does  the  power  of  sin  appear.  No  doubt  is 
entertained  that  obedience  to  the  law  is  necessary; 
no  other  way  of  terminating  the  conflict  is  discerned. 
It  rages  on  until  the  soul  is  full  of  misery  and  despair, 
when  Christ  is  seen  in  his  glorified  character.  As 
soon  as  he  is  known  as  the  true  Messiah  and  Deliv- 
erer, a  new  way  of  life  at  once  opens  to  the  soul. 
The  conflict  in  the  field  of  law  has  been  found  to  be 
a  hopeless  one ;  it  must  be  given  up.  A  new  prin- 
ciple, that  of  faith,  must  supplant  that  of  legal 
obedience.  Sin  renders  impossible  the  perfect  obe- 
dience which  the  law  requires,  and  thus  the  door  of 
human  merit  through  works  of  righteousness  is  shut ; 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  15 

that  of  self-surrender  to  be  saved  by  God's  grace  — 
that  is,  the  way  of  faith —  alone  remains.1 

It  should  be  borne  distinctly  in  mind  that  this 
inner  conflict  was  not  between  efforts  to  be  saved  by 
the  law,  and  doubts  stimulated  by  Christian  teach- 
ing as  to  the  correctness  of  this  method,  but  between 
these  efforts  and  the  power  of  sin  which  doomed  them 
to  failure.  It  implies,  therefore,  no  scruple  regard- 
ing obedience  to  the  law  as  the  true  and  only  way  of 
salva.tion,  much  less  any  hesitation  regarding  his 
conduct  as  a  persecutor,  but  only  anxiety,  fear,  and 

1  No  writer  has  urged  more  forcibly  than  has  Neander  the 
objections  to  the  naturalistic  explanation  of  Saul's  conversion,  on 
the  one  side,  and  the  necessity  of  connecting  it  with  his  mental 
and  spiritual  history,  on  the  other.  He  has  not,  however,  dis- 
cussed the  bearing  of  Rom.  vii.  on  the  subject.  His  allusion  to  it 
leaves  little  doubt  that  his  view  of  it  is  similar  to  that  here  pre- 
sented. He  says  that  we  should  view  his  conversion  as  "  an  in- 
ward transaction  in  Paul's  mind,  a  spiritual  revelation  of  Christ 
to  his  higher  self -consciousness ;  and  in  this  light  we  may  view 
the  experiences  which  he  had  in  his  conflict  with  himself  while  a 
Pharisee  ...  as  forming  a  preparation  by  which  his  heart  was 
rendered  capable  of  receiving  those  internal  revelations  of  the  Re- 
deemer."—  Planting  and  Training,  Bohn  ed.  i.  86;  Am.  ed.  p.  87. 

The  same  significance  is  attached  by  Weiss  to  the  conflict 
described  in  Rom.  vii.  In  speaking  of  his  conscientious  efforts  to 
fulfil  the  law  according  to  a  zealous  Pharisee's  conception  of  his 
duty,  Weiss  says  :  "  Nevertheless  all  his  efforts  to  gain  favor  with 
God  by  this  means  did  not  satisfy  him.  In  constant  strife  with 
his  own  opposing  nature,  he  only  became  more  and  more  deeply 
entangled  in  the  unhappy  struggle  between  the  desire  to  do  better 
and  the  impotence  of  the  natural  man,  which  led  him  utterly  to 
despair  of  his  own  salvation  (Rom.  vii.  11-24)."  —  Introduction 
to  the  New  Testament,  i.  151  (§  13,  2), 


16  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

despondency  on  Saul's  part  because  of  his  inability 
to  pursue  that  way  successfully.1 

Zeller  appeals  to  Rom.  vii.  7-25  as  an  evidence 
that  Saul  "cannot  have  assumed  the  part  of  a  perse- 
cutor without  hesitation  and  scruples  of  conscience. "  2 
This  view  derives  its  plausibility  from  a  misplaced 
emphasis  in  dealing  with  the  passage.  It  assumes 
that  the  conflict  described  was  stimulated  by  the  force 
and  attractiveness  of  Christianity  for  Saul's  mind, 
instead  of  by  his  deepening  consciousness  of  the  ideals 
and  obligations  of  the  law.  It  is  fatal  to  Zeller's 
interpretation  that  the  passage  is  expressly  devoted 
to  proving  the  moral  usefulness  of  the  law  (verse  7) 
in  making  men  deeply  conscious  of  sin,  and  that  dur- 
ing the  conflict  which  the  law  awakens  between  the 
desire  for  obedience  and  the  hindering  power  of  evil, 
the  perfect  fulfilment  of  the  law  remains  as  the  ideal. 
No  rivalry  between  the  legal  method  of  salvation  and 
any  other  method  is  hinted  at.  The  whole  conflict  is 
occasioned  and  pursued  to  its  end  in  consequence  of 
the  intense  and  persistent  desire  to  fulfil  the  law's 
requirements.  The  struggle  is,  from  first  to  last, 
between  the  better  forces  witLin  the  awakened  con- 
science which  aspire  to  obedience,  and  the  more 
potent  forces  of  sin  which  render  the  effort  futile 

1  On  the  difference  between  Saul's  consciousness  of  personal 
failure  to  obey  the  law  and  the  idea  of  the  absolute  impossibility 
of  salvation  by  it,  vide  Pfleiderer,  Paulinismus,  pp.  4,  5  (Eng.  tr.  i. 
pp.  4,  5). 

1  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  I  294. 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  IT 

and  hopeless.  The  sight  of  Christ  as  the  gracious 
Saviour  who  receives  the  sinner  upon  faith,  is  the 
termination  of  the  conflict,  — the  event  which  solves 
the  problem  of  conscience  of  whose  solution  Saul  is 
despairing,  and  not  the  occasion  and  exciting  cause 
of  the  conflict,  as  Zeller  assumes.  The  error  of  this 
view  is  the  error  of  making  the  peacemaker,  who  at 
last  settles  an  apparently  hopeless  quarrel,  an  insti- 
gator and  chief  party  in  the  contest. 

The  further  reason  given  by  Zeller  for  Paul's 
scruples  as  a  persecutor,  that  he  was  a  "  pure  char- 
acter, "  is  much  weakened  by  the  history  of  consci- 
entious persecutions,  and  in  Paul's  case  is  wholly 
overthrown  by  his  own  testimony  that  it  was  just  in 
consequence  of  his  conscientious  and  zealous  devo- 
tion to  his  religion  that  he  deemed  it  his  duty  to 
exterminate  Christianity.  His  purity  of  character 
previous  to  his  conversion  in  the  only  sense  in  which 
it  can  be  maintained  —  that  is,  his  conscientious  relig- 
ious devotion,  animated  by  misdirected  zeal  —  was 
the  very  cause  of  his  extraordinary  hostility  to  the 
Christian  religion.  "  I  verily  thought  with  myself, " 
he  says, —  it  was  my  deliberate  and  conscientious  con- 
viction,—  "that  I  ought  to  do  many  things  contrary 
to  the  name  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  "  (Acts  xxvi.  9). 

We  agree,  then,  with  those  writers  who  hold  that 
the  conversion  of  Paul  was  connected  with  a  process 
of  reflection,  but  maintain  that  this  process  was  one 
which  was  leading  him  rather  to  despair  than  to  the 
joyous  acceptance  of  the  gospel.  The  revelation 

2 


18  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

of  Christ  to  him  terminated  the  conflict  of  mind 
which-  he  had  experienced,  not  because  that  conflict 
had  forced  his  heart  to  faith  in  the  Messiah,  but 
because  it  had  forced  him  into  anxiety  and  unrest 
of  soul  regarding  himself,  which  the  manifestation 
of  Christ  to  him  at  length  met  and  satisfied.  It 
convinced  him  of  the  fact  of  the  exaltation  and 
heavenly  glory  of  Jesus, — a  fact  to  which  no  scruples 
regarding  his  spiritual  state  such  as  he  describes  in 
Rom.  vii.  could  ever  have  conducted  him;  a  fact 
which  took  away  the  "  stumbling-block  "  occasioned 
by  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ.  Here  was 
the  turning-point  in  his  life.  He  was  convinced,  as 
a  Pharisee,  only  of  this,  —  that  an  earnest  and  con- 
scientious soul  becomes  the  scene  of  a  severe  conflict 
when  it  really  sees  what  the  law  demands,  and  meas- 
ures its  own  insufficient  strength  to  obey.  The 
principle  of  faith  was  familiar  in  the  teaching  of 
the  Christians.  When,  now,  Christ  becomes  dis- 
closed to  Saul,  and  the  fact  of  his  Messiahship 
becomes  thereby  established,  a  new  solution  of  the 
problems  of  conscience  is  offered.  It  only  remains 
for  Saul  to  apply  it  to  the  struggles  which  had  so  long 
raged  in  his  life  and  deprived  him  of  security  and 
peace.  He  now  sees  that  the  soul  does  not  climb 
into  acceptance  with  God,  but  rests  in  the  assurance 
of  his  mercy.  When  the  fact  of  Christ's  Messiahship 
is  revealed  to  Saul,  —  the  fact  which  alone  can  give 
a  new  direction  to  his  life,  — the  application  of  the 
faith-principle  to  the  efforts  of  the  will  and  to  the  as- 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  19 

pirations  of  the  heart  after  peace  with  God  can  be 
quickly  made  by  one  who  has  been  so  often  baffled 
in  his  strivings  after  that  peace  through  deeds  of 
obedience  to  the  law. 

It  is  in  this  consciousness  of  failure  to  find  rest  in 
legal  works  that  we  discover  the  inner  point  of  con- 
tact between  the  Christian  life  of  Paul  and  his  expe- 
rience as  a  Pharisee.  His  Christian  view  of  the 
futility  of  legal  works  is  doubtless  grounded  in  the 
conflicts  and  failures  which  are  pictured  in  Rom.  vii. 
But  these  conflicts  could  never  have  produced  his 
theology  of  justification  had  it  not  been  for  the  con- 
vincing revelation  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  was  the 
Messiah,  who  was  risen  and  reigning  in  the  glory  of 
the  heavenly  world.  But  given  this  fact,  the  prin- 
ciples of  his  teaching  spring  at  once  into  relation  to 
his  former  efforts  and  experiences,  and  transform  the 
bitter  cry,  "  0  wretched  man  that  I  am ! "  into  the 
joyous  exclamation,  "1  thank  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord  "  (Rom.  vii.  24,  25). 

We  must  concur  in  the  opinion  of  Pfleiderer  that 
psychological  theories  concerning  Paul's  conversion 
are  useful  in  proportion  as  they  help  to  give  us  an 
insight  into  his  religious  experiences  and  concep- 
tions,1 but  would  add  that  they  are  likely  to  be  cor- 
rect in  proportion  as  they  harmonize  with  Paul's  own 
testimony  and  with  natural  inferences  from  it.  So 
far  as  we  can  connect  his  theology  with  his  conver- 
sion and  its  antecedents,  we  may  find  in  them  two 

1  Paulinismus  p.  4  (Eng.  tr.  i.  4). 


20  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

fruitful  germs  of  his  subsequent  teaching :  one  is  his 
own  consciousness  of  failure  in  legal  obedience ;  the 
other  his  unshaken  conviction,  based  upon  a  distinct 
personal  experience,  of  the  resurrection  and  exalta- 
tion of  Jesus  as  Messiah.  The  former  might  be 
called  the  negative,  the  latter  the  positive  pole  of 
the  Pauline  system.  We  regard  all  efforts  to  ex- 
plain his  conversion  as  a  process  of  thought  starting 
from  the  first  of  these  presuppositions  alone,  as  both 
historically  and  psychologically  untenable.  They 
can  neither  adequately  explain  how  he  could  have 
become  convinced  of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  nor 
can  they  account  for  his  own  clear  distinction  between 
his  pre-Christian  reflections  and  his  conversion,  or 
for  his  evident  belief  that  the  revelation  of  Christ  to 
him  was  an  objective  fact.1 

1  The  untenableness  of  the  arguments  by  which  the  vision- 
hypothesis  is  supported  has  been  frequently  exposed.  If  it  was 
in  a  vision  that  Paul  saw  the  exalted  Christ,  then  the  vision  was 
one  which  revealed  to  him  a,  fact.  It  must  in  that  case  have  been 
a  divinely  effected  vision  and  have  corresponded  to  reality  (cf. 
Weiss,  The  Life  of  Christ,  iii.  412;  Fisher,  Supernatural  Origin 
of  Christianity,  p.  468).  The  capital  fact  which  bears  against 
this  mode  of  explanation  is,  that  while  Paul  has  commented  freely 
on  his  visions  (see,  for  example,  2  Cor.  xii.  1-7),  he  never  alludes  to 
his  conversion  in  terms  kindred  to  those  applied  to  visions,  nor  af- 
fords the  slightest  suggestion  that  the  experience  of  his  conversion 
was  of  the  nature  of  an  ecstatic  state.  It  is  obviously  unwarranted 
to  refer  to  2  Cor.  xii.  2,  "  Whether  in  the  body,  I  know  not,"  etc., 
as  even  Pfleiderer  does  (Paulinismus,  p.  15  ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  14),  since 
that  ecstasy  occurred  at  least  six  years  after  his  conversion  and 
cannot  be  appealed  to  as  descriptive  of  it.  On  the  vision-hypothe- 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  21 

The  conversion  of  the  apostle  sustains  an  impor- 
tant relation  to  his  mission  as  the  bearer  of  the  gos- 
pel to  the  Gentiles,  and  to  the  whole  development  of 
his  subsequent  theology.  He  associates  his  conver- 
sion and  his  mission  to  the  heathen  closely  together 
(Gal.  i.  15,  16),  and  contemplates  the  revelation  of 
Christ  to  him  as  having  this  mission  for  its  end.  In 
the  same  way  in  Acts  xxvi.  16-18  the  Lord  is  repre- 
sented as  commissioning  him  for  this  work  in  con- 
nection with  the  experience  of  his  conversion.  In 
the  narrative  in  Acts  xxii.  21  this  charge  is  given 
when  Paul  was  at  Jerusalem  long  subsequent  to  his 
conversion  (<?/.  Gal.  i.  17,  18),  while  in  ix.  15  it  is 
Ananias  to  whom  the  appointment  of  Paul  as  an 
apostle  to  the  Gentiles  is  communicated.  The  fact 
that  he  spent  three  years  in  Arabia  and  Damascus 
(Gal.  i.  17),  and  later  not  less  than  five  years  in 
Syria  and  Cilicia  (Gal.  i.  21 ;  cf.  Acts  ix.  30),  as  well 
as  the  circumstance  that  during  these  years  his 
preaching  was  almost,  if  not  quite,  exclusively  to 
Jews  and  Hellenists  (Acts  ix.  20-22 ;  ix.  29 ;  xi.  19 ; 
xiii.  5,  14;  Rom.  i.  16),  would  indicate  that  Paul 
had  not  yet  come  to  the  full  consciousness  of  his  dis- 
tinctive mission,  but  that  it  was  made  increasingly 
manifest  to  him  in  the  course  of  his  missionary 
labors.  So  far  as  the  Acts  enable  us  to  trace  the 
beginning  of  Paul's  special  mission  on  behalf  of  the 

sis  as  most  ingeniously  elaborated  by  Holsten,  there  are  clear 
and  just  criticisms  by  Sabatier  (L'Apotre  Paul,  pp.  43-49 ;  Eng. 
tr.  pp.  64-67). 


22  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

Gentiles,  it  was  at  Pisidian  Antioch  during  the  first 
missionary  journey  that  he  and  Barnabas  turned  to 
the  Gentiles  when  they  saw  their  eagerness  to  hear 
the  word  of  God,  and  observed  the  envy  of  the  Jews 
on  this  account  (Acts  xiii.  42-46 ;  cf.  Rom.  ix.  30  sq. ). 
The  Jewish  synagogue  had,  on  account  of  its  free 
and  popular  character,  furnished  the  Gentiles  an 
opportunity  to  manifest  their  interest;  while  the 
Jews,  with  envious  contempt  for  the  heathen,  turned 
the  tide  of  the  missionaries'  labors,  and  became  the 
occasion  of  opening  a  new  epoch  in  the  progress  of 
the  gospel. 

Such  seems  to  have  been  the  actual  unfolding  in 
history  of  the  idea  of  Paul's  apostolate  to  the  na- 
tions. But  it  was  natural  that,  reflecting  on  this 
providential  opening  of  great  opportunities  for  la- 
bor and  success,  he  should  have  conceived  of  it  as 
involved  in  the  very  revelation  by  which  he  had  been 
made  a  Christian ;  and  indeed,  in  a  true  and  proper 
sense,  it  was  so.  Whether  Paul  was  directly  con- 
scious, from  the  time  of  his  conversion,  of  the  char- 
acter of  his  peculiar  life-work,  is  a  question  which 
depends  upon  the  critical  view  taken  of  the  narra- 
tives of  his  conversion  in  their  relation  to  the  actual 
history  of  the  comparatively  slow  and  late  develop- 
ment of  the  idea  under  definite  and  favoring  condi- 
tions. That  he  possessed  this  consciousness  from 
the  first  is  by  no  means  so  evident  as  is  commonly 
assumed. 

That  his  conversion,  considering  all  that  it  in- 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  23 

volved,  did  most  naturally  and  inevitably  look  toward 
this  result  is  clear.  Paul  was  pre-eminently  the 
man  for  the  Gentile  work,  both  in  point  of  natural 
qualification  and  by  reason  of  his  experience,  which 
had  so  sharpened  his  sense  of  the  futility  of  seeking 
salvation  in  Jewish  methods.  The  very  meaning  with 
which  his  conversion  must  have  invested  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Jesus  would  tend  powerfully  to  this  result. 
As  soon  as  he  was  convinced  that  it  was  trust  in 
Jesus  that  secured  salvation,  his  reaction  of  mind 
from  the  legal  efforts  by  which  he  had  vainly  sought 
for  peace  would  drive  him  beyond  all  Jewish  par- 
ticularism in  his  conception  and  propagation  of  the 
gospel.  His  mission  to  the  outlying  and  despised 
nations  finds  therefore  its  logical  ground  in  the 
revelation  of  Christ  as  the  Risen  and  Exalted  One 
who  saves  all  on  equal  terms. 

Closely  connected  with  his  personal  mission  is  his 
whole  view  of  the  nature  and  destination  of  the  gos- 
pel. This  too  is  grounded  in  his  conversion,  and 
was  defined  and  sharpened  in  his  consciousness  by 
his  previous  experience  as  a  Pharisee.  No  one  who 
had  not  had  some  experience  of  moral  struggle  under 
the  law  analogous  .to  Paul's,  could  have  so  sharply 
defined  the  gospel  principles  of  salvation  in  contrast 
to  the  legal.  The  law  had  once  shut  up  his  own  soul 
in  prison  until  he  learned  that  faith  could  set  him 
free  (Gal.  iii.  23).  It  was  not  only  what  Paul  was 
by  nature  and  what  he  became  by  conversion,  but 
what  he  had  been  as  a  Pharisee,  which  enabled  him 


24  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

to  develop  his  system  of  doctrine.  Especially  would 
the  experiences  of  dissatisfaction  and  struggle  under 
the  law,  which  had  given  the  objective  revelation  of 
Christ  a  point  of  contact  with  his  inner  life,  con- 
tribute powerfully  to  his  conviction  of  the  inadequacy 
of  all  human  efforts  to  attain  salvation,  and  of  the 
absolute  necessity  of  receiving  it  as  a  gift  of  grace 
on  condition  of  faith.  Thus  the  call  of  the  apostle 
to  his  work  as  a  preacher  of  the  gospel  of  grace  is 
most  closely  related  to  his  conversion,  and  to  all 
the  reflections  and  experiences  which  are  connected 
with  it. 

As  soon  as  he  knew  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  it 
would  at  once  follow  that  the  way  of  life  which  he 
had  proclaimed,  rather  than  that  advocated  by  the 
Pharisees,  was  the  true  one.  The  Mosaic  law  as 
alone  pointing  the  way  to  salvation  would  be  re- 
placed by  the  Messiah  himself.  Legal  obedience 
would  speedily  give  place  to  personal  trust  as  the 
true  principle  of  religion.  It  would  therefore  be 
obvious  that  the  way  of  salvation  was  open,  not  to 
Jews  alone,  but  to  the  whole  world ;  that  one  condi- 
tion of  acceptance  with  God  —  faith  in  Christ  —  was 
required  alike  of  all.  A  larger  thought  of  the  nature 
and  scope  of  religion  would  speedily  supplant  Jew- 
ish particularism,  and  Christianity  would  be  seen  to 
be  universal  in  its  design  and  adaptation. 

The  same  religious  zeal  which  had  before  been 
employed  against  Christianity  is  now  directed  to  its 
extension.  The  same  resolute  will  and  honest  con- 


THE  CONVERSION  OF  PAUL  25 

science  which  had  treated  the  gospel  as  a  dangerous 
heresy  are  now  enlisted  to  herald  its  truths  and  pro- 
mote its  sacred  ends.  This  whole  change,  psycho- 
logically considered,  turns  on  Saul's  new  conviction 
of  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  Given  that  truth,  with 
his  bitter  experiences  of  struggle  under  law,  he  cannot 
but  see  Christianity  as  universal  in.  its  very  nature, 
and  faith  as  its  characteristic  and  central  truth.  This 
statement  is  not  meant  to  imply  that  his  appointment 
to  his  mission  was  not  also  received  by  direct  divine 
call,  but  to  point  out  the  logical  connection  between 
his  conversion  and  his  teaching.  However  direct 
his  appointment  to  his  peculiar  work,  it  was  not 
without  a  rational  connection  with  his  spiritual 
history,  and  especially  with  the  revelation  of  Christ 
to  him. 

The  mission  and  theology  of  Paul  are  involved  in 
each  other,  and  cannot  be  separated.  His  theology  — 
his  "  gospel "  (Rom.  ii.  16 ;  xvi.  25 ;  Gal.  i.  6  sq. )  — 
was  simply  an  exposition  and  justification  of  those 
truths  which  were  involved  in  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus,  and  which  it  was  his  work  to  proclaim  to  the 
Gentile  world.  His  epistles,  in  their  original  inten- 
tion, were  but  a  means  of  enlarging  his  work  and  in- 
fluence as  a  preacher  to  the  nations ;  they  were  writ- 
ten to  assist  and  supplement  his  missionary  labors. 
In  them  we  happily  possess  a  full  elaboration  of  those 
principles  and  truths  which  were  the  staple  of  the 
apostle's  teaching.  Those  principles  were  deeply 
rooted  in  his  life-experience.  They  were  evolved, 


26  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

under  divine  guidance  and  enlightenment,  through 
reflection  and  experience,  from  certain  elementary 
facts  which  center  in  his  conversion.  They  are  divine 
truths;  and  just  because  they  are  divine  we  should 
believe  that  they  are  in  closest  connection  with  the 
whole  inner  movement  of  the  life  that  was  so  effective 
in  teaching  them.  It  is  just  because  they  are  divine 
that  they  are  genetically  unfolded  in  harmony  with 
man's  spiritual  constitution  and  in  connection 
with  the  special  spiritual  experiences  of  their  great 
champion. 


CHAPTER  II 

PAUL'S  STYLE   AND   MODES   OP   THOUGHT1 

BEING  a  Hellenist  Paul  learned  Greek  as  his  native 
language,  and  could  employ  it  with  facility  and 
power;  but  his  knowledge  of  Hebrew,  acquired  in 
the  schools,  and  his  familiarity  with  Old  Testament 
language  and  thought,  imparted  a  Hebraistic  tinge  to 
his  writings.  The  rugged  and  broken  style  in  which 
he  often  writes  is  due,  however,  chiefly  to  his  care- 
lessness of  form  and  to  the  impetuous  rush  of  his 
thought.  He  could,  no  doubt,  have  constructed  his 
epistles  in  as  elegant  a  Greek  style  as  that  in  which 
Luke  has  reported  his  discourses  in  the  later  chap- 
ters of  Acts,  or  have  rivalled  in  his  rhetoric  and 
diction  the  mellifluous  style  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  The  apostle  has,  however,  bestowed 
little  pains  upon  form,  in  his  eager  desire  to  con- 
vince his  readers  of  the  truth  and  importance  of  his 
ideas  and  convictions.  Even  when  he  sets  out 
to  write  in  a  methodical  manner,  he  fails  to  carry 
out  his  intention  by  forgetting  his  mode  of  begin- 
ning ;  as,  for  example,  in  Rom.  i.  8,  and  iii.  2,  where 

1  The  substance  of  this  chapter  was  published  in  the  Andover 
Review  for  July,  1890. 


28  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

he  begins  with  "firstly,"  but  never  resumes  the 
enumeration  by  adding  "secondly."  His  letters 
abound  in  examples  of  what  is  sometimes  called 
"  going  off  at  a  word, "  —  the  addition  of  accessory 
ideas  to  every  principal  term,  so  as  to  combine  many 
thoughts  which  lie  outside  his  primary  purpose  with 
the  matter  immediately  in  hand.  The  salutation  in 
Rom.  i.  1-7  furnishes  good  illustrations.  At  the 
mention  of  "  the  gospel  "  (verse  1),  he  appends  a  brief 
historic  description  of  it  (verse  2) ;  to  the  title  "  Son  " 
he  adds  an  account  of  him  with  respect  to  the  two 
sides  of  his  being  (verses  3,  4).  Occasionally  a  con- 
crete point  in  his  argument  suggests  to  the  apostle  a 
universal  truth,  to  which  his  thoughts,  borne  aloft  by 
its  greatness  and  power,  suddenly  mount  up,  and  in 
the  expression  of  which  we  find  examples  of  sublime 
eloquence.  A  striking  instance  is  found  where,  in 
discussing  the  Corinthian  parties,  he  urges  that 
those  who  enlist  under  the  banner  of  Apollos, 
Cephas,  or  any  other  teacher  exclusively  are,  by  so 
doing,  depriving  themselves  of  the  benefits  which 
they  might  derive  from  other  Christian  teachers; 
whereas  the  disciple  should  make  all  sources  of 
help  his  own ;  all  are  his  right.  Then  the  idea  of 
the  Christian's  possession  takes  hold  upon  his  mind, 
and  his  thought  suddenly  expands :  Yes,  all  things 
are  yours;  not  only  Paul,  Apollos,  and  Cephas,  but 
the  world  and  life  and  death,  things  present  and 
things  to  come,  all  are  yours,  if  ye  are  Christ's,  for 
Christ  is  God's  (1  Cor.  iii.  21-23). 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  29 

t 

There  is  no  mark  of  style  which  is  more  character- 
istic of  Paul's  epistles  than  the  anacoluthon, — the 
carrying  out  of  a  sentence  or  paragraph  in  a  differ- 
ent way  from  that  which  the  beginning  contemplated 
(see  Rom.  ii.  17,  21).  Sometimes  his  sentences 
are  left  quite  unfinished  (see  Rom.  ix.  22-24). 
Frequently  the  progress  of  thought  is  interrupted 
with  long  explanatory  parentheses,  as  in  Rom.  v. 
12  sq.,  where,  after  stating  one  side  of  an  Intended 
comparison  (verse  12),  he  pauses  to  explain  the  lan- 
guage concerning  the  relation  of  death  and  sin,  with 
which  he  had  started  (verses  13,  14),  and  then  resumes 
the  comparison,  but  in  a  new  form  (verses  15-17).  In- 
stead of  stating  the  point  of  similarity  between  the 
entrance  of  sin  into  the  world  by  Adam  and  that  of 
righteousness  by  Christ,  which  he  had  begun  to  state 
in  verse  12,  he  takes  up  the  constrast  between  the  two, 
and  shows  how  they  are  unlike.  Three  times  he 
affirms  and  characterizes  this  unlikeness  in  verses 
15-17 ;  and  only  in  verse  18  does  he  resume  the  com- 
parison and  positively  assert  the  point  of  likeness 
which  exists  between  Adam  and  Christ. 

There  are  numerous  examples  of  play  upon  words, 
whose  force  is  lost  in  translation,  but  which  serve  to 
illustrate  the  apostle's  skill  in  the  employment  of 
language.  We  may  note,  as  instances,  Rom.  i.  20, 
TO,  aopara  TOV  deov  /cadoparai,  "  The  unseen  things  of 
God  are  clearly  seen  "  (by  the  use  of  the  reason,  vovs} ; 
i.  28,  KaOws  OVK  eSoKipacrav  —  TrapeSwfcev  avrovs  et9 
vovv,"  Since  they  did  not  approve  to  retain 


30  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

God,  etc. ,  he  gave  them  over  to  an  unapproved  mind. " 
He  does  not  scorn  even  the  playful  use  of  the  pun  in 
a  personal  letter,  as  may  be  seen  in  Philemon  20, 
where,  in  allusion  to  the  name  Ouesimus  (meaning 
profitable),  he  says,  i/ai,  dSe\<J>e,  eyca  <rov  ovaipijv  ev 
Kvpta),  "  Let  me  be  profited  by  thee  in  the  Lord, "  —  I 
have  returned  to  you,  Philemon,  your  servant  Onesi- 
mus,  who  is  now  truly  profitable;  do  you  now  in  turn 
prove  profitable  (be  my  Onesimus)  by  receiving  him 
as  a  Christian  brother.  A  similar  touch  of  humor  is 
seen  in  verses  10,  11,  where  Paul  says,  after  mention- 
ing the  name  Onesimus,  "  who  was  aforetime  unprofit- 
able [axpr)<rTov~]  to  thee,  but  now  is  profitable 
[e#x/3?7o-Toi/],"  etc.  ;  that  is,  this  servant  of  Philemon 
had  formerly  belied  the  meaning  of  his  name,  but 
now  will  prove  to  be  what  his  name  imports.  Paul 
can  also,  upon  occasion,  make  his  apt  use  of  kin- 
dred words  serve  the  ends  of  bitter  satire,  as  in  Gal. 
v.  12,  "  Would  that  those  who  insist  upon  circumci- 
sion had  it  to  the  point  of  mutilation  [^a-n-oKo-^ovTai] . " 
With  this  passage  may  be  compared  the  use  of  Kara- 
rofj^r)  and  Treptro/*^  in  Phil.  iii.  2,  3. 

The  vivacity  and  power  of  Paul's  letters  are  well 
described  by  Weiss  in  the  following  just  and  forci- 
ble language: — 

"  It  is  certain  that  we  never  find  the  cold  objectivity 
of  the  author,  because  the  living  warmth  of  the  letter- 
writer  throbs  in  all  his  epistles.  Hence  the  frequent 
addresses,  the  ever-recurring  questions,  with  which  he 
draws  out  his  details.  Paul  is  able  powerfully  to  move, 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  31 

but  also  to  lift  up  and  comfort ;  high  moral  earnestness 
is  always  associated  in  him  with  depth  of  religious  feel- 
ing, which  often  finds  vent  in  inspired  utterance.  He  is 
not  without  passion ;  he  lashes  the  weaknesses  and  errors 
of  his  readers  without  pity  ;  he  is  able  mortally  to  wound 
his  opponents,  and  does  not  even  despise  the  weapons  of 
irony  and  satire.  But  the  softest  tones  of  the  mind  are 
likewise  at  his  disposal ;  the  ebullition  of  righteous  anger 
softens  down  to  the  most  touching  expression  of  heartfelt 
love ;  he  can  speak  the  language  of  deeply  wounded  love 
as  well  as  of  most  ardent  longing,  of  exulting  gratitude 
as  well  as  of  suppressed  pain."  1 

Of  greater  importance  for  our  present  purpose 
than  the  consideration  of  Paul's  style  is  the  study  of 
the  characteristics  of  his  thinking  and  his  favor- 
ite modes  of  presenting  his  thoughts,  in  order  to 
gain  a  just  conception  of  his  teaching  upon  special 
subjects.  By  this  study  is  meant  something  more 
than  an  examination  of  style;  it  includes  the 
thought-forms  which  lie  behind  style, —  the  moulds 
into  which  ideas  are  run. 

This  subject  has  never  received  sufficient  attention. 
Interpreters  have  too  often  taken  up  the  Pauline  let- 
ters without  reference  to  the  environment  in  which 
they  were  produced,  the  peculiarities  of  the  writer, 
or  the  special  ends  contemplated  in  his  writings. 
Upon  his  words  have  been  put  meanings  which  be- 
long to  opinions  and  speculations  which  he  never 
entertained,  and  around  his  teaching  have  been 

1  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  i.  212  (§  16,  5). 


32  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

thrown  associations  wholly  foreign  to  his  own  type 
of  thought.  Paul  has  been  read  as  if  he  had  written 
in  the  nineteenth  century  (or  more  commonly  as  if 
he  had  written  in  the  fifth  or  seventeenth),  and  as  if 
his  writings  had  no  peculiarities  arising  from  his 
own  time,  education,  and  mental  constitution. 

The  task  of  defining  these  peculiarities  is  indeed 
a  difficult  one.  We  are  so  remote  from  the  apostle's 
time,  we  have  so  inadequate  a  knowledge  of  the  re- 
ligious conceptions  under  whose  influence  his  Chris- 
tian belief  was  matured,  that  we  need  to  proceed 
with  great  caution  and  reserve  in  the  treatment  of 
the  subject;  but  that  it  is  necessary  to  define  as 
carefully  as  possible  the  Pauline  modes  of  thought  is 
a  conviction  which  will  be  forced  upon  the  mind  of 
every  intelligent  student  who  seeks  to  ascertain  pre- 
cisely the  apostle's  meaning. 

One  prominent  characteristic  of  Paul's  thought 
may  be  designated,  for  want  of  a  better  term,  as 
mystical  realism.  This  quality  is  most  clearly  illus- 
trated in  his  conception  of  the  close  relation  between 
unregenerate  humanity  and  the  natural  head  of  the 
race,  Adam,  on  the  one  hand,  and  between  man  as 
the  subject  of  redemption  and  the  head  of  spiritual 
humanity,  Christ,  on  the  other.  It  is  Characteristic 
of  Paul's  mind  to  conceive  religious  truth  under 
forms  which  are  determined  by  personal  relationship. 
These  relations,  especially  the  two  just  specified, 
may  be  termed  mystical  in  the  sense  of  being  unique, 
vital,  and  inscrutable;  they  are  real  in  the  sense 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  & 

that  sinful  humanity  is  conceived  of  as  being  actu- 
ally present  and  participant  in  Adam's  sin,  and  re- 
deemed humanity  as  being  similarly  present  and  par- 
ticipant in  Christ's  death,  burial,  and  resurrection. 
The  precise  meaning  of  the  apostle  in  affirming  the 
reality  of  these  relations  and  in  thus  identifying  man 
with  Adam  in  his  sin,  and  with  Christ  in  his  saving 
acts,  can  be  determined  only  by  a  close  study  of  the 
origin  and  purpose  of  this  method  of  thought. 

The  most  prominent  use  made  of  this  realistic  con- 
ception is  in  defining  the  believer's  relation  to  Christ. 
He  is  in  Christ ;  he  is  one  with  him ;  his  life  is  hid 
with  him  in  God.  This  realism  takes  the  peculiar 
form  of  identifying  the  believer  with  Christ  in  the 
characteristic  experiences  which  the  latter  underwent 
for  man's  salvation.  The  believer  died  with  Christ 
upon  the  cross,  was  buried  with  him  in  the  tomb, 
and  was  raised  to  newness  of  life  when  Christ  rose 
from  the  dead.1  The  origin  of  these  forms  of  thought 
is  found  in  the  relation  of  the  death  and  resurrection 
of  Christ  to  the  moral  renewal  of  the  individual. 

1  2  Cor.  v.  14  :  "  One  died  for  all,  therefore  all  died ; "  that  is, 
all  died  when  Christ  died.  The  ethical  death  to  sin  is  accom- 
plished for  all  in  and  with  the  death  of  Christ  upon  the  cross  (see 
Meyer  in  loco).  Col.  iii.  3:  "For  ye  died  [aneGavtre],"  —  not, 
"  for  ye  are  dead,"  as  the  A.  V.  rendered,  obscuring  the  pecu- 
liarity of  the  idea, —  "  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God." 
Ye  died  when  Christ  died  in  the  sense  that  your  cessation  from 
the  old  life  was  accomplished  by  the  death  of  Christ.  They  are 
so  bound  together  as  to  be  capable  of  a  mystical  identification. 
Cf.  Gal.  ii.  19 ;  Col.  ii.  20  ;  Rom.  vi.  8. 

3 


84  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

T^eir  strict  relation  is  that  of  cause  and  effect.  Now, 
under  the  power  of  Paul's  sense  of  the  close  union 
between  the  believer  and  his  Saviour  they  are  identi- 
fied in  thought  and  expression  so  that  the  believer  is 
said  to  have  died  in  an  ethical  sense  when  Christ 
died  upon  the  cross,  and  to  have  risen  with  him  to  a 
new  spiritual  life  when  he  rose  from  the  grave.  "  If, 
then,  ye  were  raised  with  Christ, "  —  not  "  if  ye  be 
risen, "  as  the  A.  V.  renders,  —  "  seek  the  things  that 
are  above"  (Col.  iii.  1).  "If  ye  rose  to  new  life 
when  Christ  rose  from  the  dead, "  is  the  form  of  the 
thought. 

This  mystical  identification  of  the  believer's  moral 
renewal  with  the  procuring  causes  of  it  in  Christ's 
death  and  resurrection  is  less  plainly  made  in  respect 
to  the  burial  than  in  respect  to  the  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Jesus.  The  reason  of  this  is  that  the 
representation  is  complicated  at  that  point  by  ref- 
erences to  water-baptism.  Death  to  sin  is  identi- 
fied with  Christ's  death,  as  being  accomplished  in 
and  with  it ;  resurrection  to  new  moral  life  is  asso- 
ciated with  Christ's  resurrection  from  the  tomb  in  pre- 
cisely the  same  way,  though  less  frequently ;  but  the 
intermediate  step  of  burial  is  not  treated  under  the 
same  form,  but  is  associated  with  baptism.  The  figure 
in  this  case  represents  baptism  as  a  burial  of  the 
believer  into  the  moral  death  to  sin  which  must  take 
place  before  the  new  life  can  ensue.  Then,  in  this 
representation,  the  entrance  upon  spiritual  life  is 
compared  with  Christ's  resurrection,  not  strictly 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  35 

identified  with  it.  "  We  were  buried  therefore  with 
him  through  baptism  into  death ;  that  like  as  Christ 
was  raised  from  the  dead  through  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  so  we  also  might  walk  in  newness  of  life  " 
(Rom.  vi.  4).  Very  similar  forms  of  expression 
occur  in  Colossians  (ii.  12) :  "Having  been  buried 
with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  ye  were  also  raised 
with  him,"  etc.  Here,  it  will  be  noticed,  the  ex- 
perience of  being  raised  to  new  life  with  Christ  is 
conceived  as  occurring  when  the  believer  emerges 
from  the  waters  of  baptism,  —  an  element  of  the 
representation  which  is  only  implied  in  the  corre- 
sponding passage  in  Romans. 

The  peculiarity  which  meets  us  in  these  passages 
is  the  imperfect  identification  of  result  and  cause 
which  we  have  observed  in  the  passages  previously 
noticed.  It  is  a  most  natural  peculiarity  on  account 
of  the  appropriateness  with  which  the  conceptions  of 
burial  and  resurrection  suggest  the  idea  of  baptism, 
for  this  is  undoubtedly  the  logical  order  of  the 
thoughts  in  the  apostle's  mind.  In  this  whole  class 
of  representations  he  has  taken  the  terms  which  de- 
scribe the  crowning  acts  of  Christ's  redemptive  work 
—  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  —  to  express  in  a 
moral  or  figurative  sense  the  renewal  which  has  its 
procuring  cause  in  those  events.  Where  this  identi- 
fication of  effect  with  cause  is  fully  made,  we  have 
such  conceptions  as  that  in  2  Cor.  v.  14,  where  the 
ethical  death  of  man  is  carried  back  in  thought  to 
Christ's  death  on  the  cross ;  but  where  the  identifica- 


36  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

tion  is  less  completely  made,  the  relation  is  stated  by 
a  comparison,  as  in  Rom.  vi.  4 :  "  Like  as  Christ  was 
raised,  ...  so  we  also. "  Here  the  believer's  ethical 
death  occurs  in  his  own  personal  experience,  and  is 
associated  with  baptism.  The  latter  form  of  thought 
is  merely  a  figurative  use  of  the  terms  of  baptism 
which  symbolizes  those  moral  changes  which  may  be 
fitly  called  death  to  sin  and  resurrection  to  new  life. 
But  it  is  the  idea  of  the  mystical  union  of  the  be- 
liever with  Christ  in  death  and  resurrection  which 
underlies  the  apostle's  language  concerning  baptism, 
and  creates  the  peculiar  phraseology  by  which  it  is 
spoken  of  as  "baptism  into  death."  The  expression 
"to  baptize  into  death"  would  be  unintelligible  if 
we  were  not  made  familiar  by  other  passages  with 
the  figurative  meaning  of  "  death  "  as  expressing  the 
moral  change  which  has  its  ground  in  Christ's  death. 
While,  therefore,  the  two  passages  concerning  bap- 
tism do  not  so  fully  express  this  mystical  identifica- 
tion of  the  believer  with  Christ,  they  imply  it  as  a 
fixed  form  of  thought  with  Paul,  and  are  inexplicable 
without  it. 

The  counterpart  of  this  mystical  identification  of 
believing  humanity  with  Christ  in  his  sacrificial  and 
saving  work  is  found  in  a  similar  identification  of 
unregenerate  humanity  with  Adam  in  his  transgres- 
sion. This  conception  is  developed  only  in  a  single 
passage  (Rom.  v.  12-21),  but  is  alluded  to  also  in 
1  Cor.  xv.  22.  Adam  and  Christ  represent  and  em- 
body the  race.  The  former  is  the  head  of  the  race 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  37 

in  respect  to  its  sinfulness;  the  latter  the  head  of  the 
race  in  respect  to  its  redemption.  They  thus  stand  in 
analogous  relations  to  the  race ;  and  it  is  the  aim  of 
the  apostle  to  show  that  grace  in  Christ  is  mightier 
than  sin  in  Adam.  He  accordingly  institutes  a  par- 
allel between  the  two  for  this  purpose.  The  peculiar 
mystical  realism  of  Paul  lies  behind  the  whole  repre- 
sentation. Sinful  man  is  identified  with  Adam  in 
precisely  the  same  way  as  redeemed  man  is  so  often 
identified  with  Christ.  The  transgression  of  Adam 
and  the  saving  death  of  Christ  are  the  terms  of  the 
comparison.  With  the  former,  the  sinfulness  of  man 
is  identified ;  with  the  latter,  the  salvation  of  man  from 
sin  is  identified.  As  the  moral  renewal  of  man  is  re- 
presented as  taking  place  in  and  with  Christ's  death 
and  resurrection,  so  the  moral  defilement  of  man  is 
represented  as  contracted  in  and  with  the  sin  of  Adam. 
The  aorist  tenses,  which  are  used  in  both  classes  of 
passages  (01  Travres  aTreffavov,  2  Cor.  v.  15 ;  aTreddvere, 
Col.  iii.  3 ;  el  aTreddvere  CTVV  Xpiary^  Col.  ii.  20 ; 
€t  8e  a7reddi>o/j,ev  crvv  XpiGTw,  Rom.  vi.  8 ;  and  e'</>'  eS 
•jrdvres  jjftapTov,  Rom.  v.  12),  can  be  naturally  ex- 
plained only  by  referring  the  "  dying  "  spoken  of  in 
the  first  class  back  to  the  time  of  Christ's  death,  and 
the  sinning  of  Rom.  v.  12  to  the  time  of  Adam's 
transgression.  The  meaning  of  the  latter  passage  is 
that  all  sinned  when  Adam  sinned.  The  whole  par- 
allel between  Adam  and  Christ  is  accordant  with 
Paul's  modes  of  thought,  the  only  peculiarity  being 
that  the  mystical  relation  between  sinful  humanity 


38  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

and  its  head,  Adam,  is  developed  in  this  passage 
alone,  while  the  contrasted  relation  of  humanity  as 
redeemed  in  Christ  is  abundantly  illustrated  in  other 
passages.  It  is  only  from  a  study  of  this  class  of 
passages  that  we  obtain  the  right  point  of  view  from 
which  to  interpret  the  much-disputed  expression,  — 
eft  &>  Trdvres  ij/Aaprov  (Rom.  V.  12). 

It  does  not  belong  to  the  present  inquiry  to  discuss 
the  meaning  of  the  passage  in  detail.  We  may, 
however,  remark  in  passing  that  those  explanations 
which  seek  to  avoid  Paul's  obvious  reference  in 
fffMaprov  to  the  time  when  Adam  sinned  are  exegeti- 
cally  as  untenable  as  the  elaborate  theories  of  Augus- 
tinian  realism  and  federal  headship  are  remote  from 
the  apostle's  modes  of  thought.  It  is  a  curious  fact 
that  while  theology  has  taken  the  phrase,  "  because 
all  sinned, "  in  the  strictest  literalness,  and  has  built 
whole  theories  of  sin  and  philosophies  of  history 
upon  it,  the  parallel  representation  of  the  race  in  its 
union  with  Christ  in  his  death  has  rarely  received 
any  similar  treatment.  Yet  the  former  finds  expres- 
sion but  once,  while  the  latter  is  a  frequent  form  of 
representation.  It  has  been  common  for  those  who 
take  the  most  literal  view  of  the  less  plain  and  promi- 
nent member  of  the  comparison  to  explain  the  other 
in  exegesis  as  merely  figurative,  and  in  theological 
speculation  to  neglect  it  altogether.  But  if  the 
phrases,  "  in  Adam  all  die, "  and  "  all  sinned  "  (when 
he  sinned),  are  adequate  ground  for  elaborate  theories 
of  the  origin  and  nature  of  sin,  their  counterpart, 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  89 

"in  Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive,"  and  "all  died" 
(when  he  died)  may  well  be  made  the  basis  of  some 
theory  of  the  relation  of  humanity  to  the  Redeemer 
and  of  the  philosophy  of  redemption. 

Both  members  of  the  parallel  equally  illustrate 
the  peculiar  mysticism  of  Paul.  It  is  fair  exegesis 
to  interpret  both  alike  in  their  natural  grammatical 
meaning  and  force.  It  would  be  a  just  procedure  in 
theology  to  explain  the  more  obscure  and  occasional 
member  of  the  comparison  by  the  plainer  and  oft- 
repeated  analogy.  It  is  an  utter  perversion  of  exe- 
getical  results  to  say  that  the  sinning  of  each  member 
of  the  race  in  Adam's  sin  is  a  literal  fact,  and  the 
occurrence  of  the  ethical  death  of  the  believer  when 
Christ  died  upon  the  cross  a  mere  figure  of  speech. 
The  terms  of  these  analogous  statements  are  to  be 
interpreted  in  the  same  way. 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  peculiar  identifica- 
tion in  time  which  Paul  makes  between  the  believer's 
renewal  and  Christ's  death  has  its  ground  in  the 
causal  connection  between  that  death  and  the  be- 
liever's salvation.  The  identification  of  the  sins  of 
individuals  with  Adam's  sin  can  have  no  other 
ground.  All  sinners  sinned  when  Adam  sinned, 
just  as  all  believers  died  to  sin  (that  is,  became  re- 
generate) when  Christ  died  upon  the  cross.  Paul's 
thought  is :  "  Mankind  as  redeemed  was  saved  in  and 
with  the  death  of  Christ,  the  head  of  the  new  human- 
ity ;  mankind  as  sinful  transgressed  in  and  with  the 
sin  of  Adam,  the  head  of  the  old  humanity. "  That 


40  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  former  was  the  more  prominent  conception  in  his 
mind  is  shown  by  his  frequent  reference  to  it,  and 
by  the  fact  that  he  introduces  the  other  thought  of  the 
sinning  of  all  men  in  Adam  only  in  order  to  set  its 
analogous  truth  in  stronger  light.  Which  represen- 
tation had  logical  precedence  in  his  mind  we  cannot 
know ;  but  the  thought  of  Christ  as  the  second  Adam 
(o  effjfaros  'ASdfj, ;  o  8eirre/jo<?  avffpcoTros  ef  ovpavov, 
1  Cor.  xv.  45,  47)  would  lead  most  naturally  to  the 
development  of  such  a  parallel  as  that  in  Rom.  v.  12 
sq.,  especially  since  the  idea  of  mystical  union  with 
Christ  in  his  death  was  a  fixed  and  favorite  form  of 
thought  with  Paul. 

Another  quality  of  the  apostle's  thought  appears 
in  the  way  in  which  he  objectifies,  and  sometimes 
almost  personifies,  the  great  truths  with  which  his 
religious  teaching  deals.  A  case  in  point  is  his  con- 
ception of  righteousness.  It  is  to  him  not  merely  a 
subjective  quality,  an  attribute  of  character;  it  is  a 
status  or  relation  which  God  constitutes.  He  calls  it 
BiKaiocrvvrj  6eov,  —  a  righteousness  which  comes  from 
God  (Rom.  i.  17;  iii.  21,  22).  It  is  something 
which  God  reveals  or  bestows.1  Its  revelation  to 

1  "  God's  righteousness  is,  in  this  connection,  the  righteousness 
which  proceeds  from  God  as  the  cause,  or  is  wrought  out  by  him  ; 
that  is,  the  way  and  manner  in  which  God  places  man  in  an  ade- 
quate relation  to  himself,  the  way  which  God  has  opened  to  the 
attainment  of  this  relation,  or  just  the  new  theory  of  justification 
which  God  has  set  forth  "  (Baur,  Neutest.  Theol.  p.  134).  The 
content  of  this  conception  is  not  now  under  consideration.  We 
are  here  concerned  only  with  its  objective/cm. 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  41 

man  in  the  gospel  (Rom.  i.  17)  is  contrasted  with 
the  revelation  of  wrath  against  "  all  ungodliness  and 
unrighteousness  of  men"  (Rom.  i.  18).  God's  per- 
sonal attribute  cannot  be  primarily  meant  in  these 
passages,  since  righteousness  is  represented  as  be- 
coming man's  possession  by  faith,  and  also  as  being 
designed  to  produce  faith  (Rom.  i.  17 :  "  by  faith 
unto  faith  " ).  The  believer  is  spoken  of  as  being 
the  recipient  of  this  endowment  or  gift  from  God 
(Rom.  iii.  22:  "unto  all  them  that  believe"),  and 
again  as  having  this  righteousness  set  to  his  account 
upon  the  exercise  of  faith  (Rom.  iv.  6 :  "  unto  whom 
God  reckoneth  righteousness,"  cf.  iv.  11). 

This  formal  conception  of  righteousness  is  the  one 
in  accordance  with  which  Paul's  definitions  of  justi- 
fication are  chiefly  developed.  It  is  by  no  means  the 
exclusive  conception  of  righteousness  which  is  found 
in  the  Pauline  writings,  but  it  is  a  prominent  one, 
whose  shaping  power  in  the  apostle's  doctrine  should 
be  fully  recognized.  Whatever  may  be  the  moral 
and  spiritual  truths  which  theology  finds  involved  in 
these  conceptions,  it  is  the  first  task  of  candid  exe- 
gesis to  describe  the  forms  of  the  biblical  thought  as 
exactly  as  the  study  of  language  permits  us  to  define 
them. 

The  dominant  conception  of  sin  with  Paul  is  that 
of  a  world-ruling  power  to  which  action  almost  per- 
sonal is  ascribed.  It  enters  the  world  (Rom.  v.  12), 
and  establishes  dominion  over  men  (Rom.  iii.  9 ;  v. 
21);  it  rules  them  as  a  master  (Rom.  vi.  6);  it  is 


42  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

roused  into  action  by  the  advent  of  law  (Rom.  vii. 
9) ;  it  makes  the  body  its  special  theatre  of  manifes- 
tation (Rom.  vii.  23-25).  It  may  be  thought  that 
these  are  but  figures  of  speech  which  have  always 
been  common.  But  it  appears  to  us  that  they  attach 
a  positiveness  and  power  to  the  principle  of  sin 
which  is  somewhat  peculiar,  and  which  is  not  with- 
out influence  upon  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification. 
His  intense  conviction  of  sin  led  him  to  define  it  in 
terms  which  were  fitted  to  express  the  thraldom  of 
man  under  it,  and  the  energy  with  which  the  law 
pronounced  its  sentence  upon  him.  All  these  forms 
of  thought  are  employed  in  the  most  realistic  man- 
ner. Sin  was  working  in  the  world  from  its  begin- 
ning in  Adam;  death  was  reigning;  but  men  were 
only  feebly  aware  of  sin's  power ;  the  law  came  and 
roused  sin  into  unwonted  energy ;  men  might  make 
whatever  efforts  they  would  to  keep  the  law,  sin 
overpowered  them;  their  situation  was  hopeless. 
Then  God  revealed  a  new  way  of  righteousness; 
upon  the  exercise  of  faith  in  Christ  the  condem- 
nation was  removed  and  a  new  relation  was  con- 
stituted. The  standing  of  one  who  comes  into  this 
new  relation  to  God  is  called  righteousness.  It  is 
from  God  in  the  sense  that  he  by  his  grace  places  the 
man  in  this  relation. 

The  subject  of  justification  is  anticipated  here  only 
so  far  as  seems  necessary  in  order  to  illustrate  this 
peculiar  objectivity  or  realism  of  the  apostle's 
thought.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  I  am 


STrLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  43 

speaking  here  only  of  the  form,  and  not  of  the  matter 
or  ethical  content,  of  these  conceptions.  What  are 
the  moral  and  spiritual  realities  which  they  involve 
is  indeed  the  important  question  for  theology,  and 
should  receive  the  full  measure  of  attention  which 
has  generally  been  bestowed  upon  it ;  but  it  is  im- 
portant as  a  preparation  for  that  inquiry  to  define 
the  shape  which  these  truths  took  in  the  apostle's 
mind.  Without  doing  this,  a  correct  conception  of 
his  teaching  cannot  be  gained.  From  lack  of  careful 
investigation  into  the  peculiarities  of  Paul's  modes 
of  thought  two  opposite  errors  have  resulted :  on  the 
one  hand,  the  formal  element  in  his  teaching  has 
been  ignored,  and  on  the  other,  the  form  has  been 
held  so  essential  and  so  identical  with  the  truths  of 
the  spiritual  life  that  it  has  been  made  to  give  the 
law  to  all  religious  thought  on  the  subject.  The 
former  is  as  unjustifiable  in  exegesis  as  the  latter  is 
unnecessary  in  theology. 

It  is  a  peculiarity  of  Paul's  thinking  that  in  the 
handling  of  certain  themes  it  moves  predominantly 
in  the  sphere  of  legal  relations.  This  fact  may  be 
due  in  some  degree  to  acquaintance  with  Roman 
law,  but  is  chiefly  accounted  for  by  his  Old  Testa- 
ment training.  In  harmony  with  this  mode  of 
thought  he  represents  the  believer's  cessation  from 
his  former  relation  to  the  Mosaic  law  as  a  death  to 
the  law,  and  illustrates  it  by  the  termination  of  the 
marriage  contract  by  the  death  of  one  of  the  parties 
(Rom.  vii.  1-6).  The  condition  of  those  who  are 


44  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

under  the  bondage  of  the  law  is  likened  to  the  rela- 
tion of  the  heir  during  his  childhood  when  he  has  no 
greater  authority  than  a  bond-servant;  while  those 
who  have  been  liberated  by  faith  in  Christ  from  this 
legal  servitude  are  like  heirs  who  have  actually  en- 
tered upon  the  inheritance  which  was  destined  for 
them  and  who  enjoy  the  full  freedom  of  sons  (Gal. 
iv.  1-7). 

The  figure  of  adoption  to  express  the  entrance 
upon  the  Christian  life  is  mingled  with  the  descrip- 
tion of  heirship  just  referred  to,  and  is  a  favorite 
form  of  thought  with  the  apostle.  It  pictures  the 
alienation  of  the  soul  from  God  in  the  old  life  by  its 
sins,  and  the  joyful  entering  upon  a  new  filial  rela- 
tion. It  is  based  upon  a  legal  analogy,  and  forms 
the  contrast  to  the  "  bondage  "  with  which  the  law 
enslaves  men.  In  the  most  striking  passage  in 
Romans  where  the  figure  is  employed  (viii.  15-17) 
it  is  blended  with  that  of  heirship. 

But  the  most  elaborate  use  of  legal  analogy  in 
Paul's  writings  is  found  in  his  development  of  his 
doctrine  of  righteousness  and  justification.  This 
has  been  to  some  extent  illustrated  in  the  remarks 
upon  the  objectivity  of  these  forms  of  thought  as  they 
appear  in  his  doctrinal  epistles.  It  remains  to  seek  the 
ground  of  these  conceptions  in  the  sphere  of  Jewish 
thought.  They  are  distinctively  Old  Testament  con- 
ceptions. Righteousness  in  the  prevailing  Old  Tes- 
tament meaning  is  the  condition  of  one  who  stands  in 
a  right  relation  to  God^  that  relation  being  measured 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  45 

and  determined  by  the  requirements  of  some  norm  or 
law.  The  corresponding  term,  "to  justify,"  de- 
notes a  forensic  act  by  which  one  is  declared  to 
stand  or  to  be  placed  in  this  relation.  When  predi- 
cated of  God,  it  denotes  an  act  of  the  divine  judg- 
ment, a  proclamation  of  the  relation  of  favor  and 
acceptance. 1 

We  are  not  here  concerned  with  the  theological 
conflicts  which  have  been  waged  over  these  words. 
What  is  of  importance  for  our  present  purpose  is  that 
the  whole  subject  of  justification  is  treated  prevail- 
ingly from  a  legal  point  of  view,  and  that  no  exegesis 
of  Paul's  language  can  be  correct  which  ignores  this 
fact.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  it  is  necessary  to 
recur  to  these  fundamental  peculiarities  of  Paul's 
modes  of  thought,  in  order  that  his  language  may  be 
interpreted  in  accord  with  his  own  peculiar  genius 
and  not  be  forced  to  yield  meanings  foreign  to  his 

i  Cf.  Schultz,  Alttest.  Theol,  293,  294.  "  Sobald  der  Begriff 
der  Gerechtigkeit  an  einem  gbttlichen  oder  menschlichen  Urtheil 
orientirt  wird,  heisst  '  gerecht  machen  '  durchaus  immer  '  den 
Menschen  durch  den  Urtheilsspruch  als  unschuldig,  im  Rechte 
befindlich  erklaren,'  —  niemals  ihm  eine  sittliche  Erneuerung 
zum  Guten  bringen.  .  .  .  Bei  dieser  Bedeutung  des  Wortes 
'  gerecht '  begreift  sich  leicht,  dass  Gerechtigkeit  und  Siindlo- 
sigkeit,  ira  strengen  Sinne  des  Wortes,  nichts  mit  einander  zu 
thun  haben." 

Schultz  maintains  the  "  purely  forensic  significance  "  of  the  Old 
Testament  equivalent  of  SIKOIOVV  (p^V^)  iQ  all  cases  except  Is.  liii. 
11  (as  well  as  of  its  counterpart  jTBnn).  To  this  exception  Cheyne, 
following  Gesenius,  adds  Dan.  xii.  3.  See  Prophecies  of  Isaiah, 
in  loco.  Is.  liii.  11. 


46  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

type  of  thinking,  or  conformed  to  moulds  which  be- 
long to  the  theological  interpreter.  The  application 
of  the  forensic  type  of  thought  to  the  phenomena  of 
spiritual  life  is  not  agreeable  to  many  minds,  but  it 
was  so  to  Paul's.  It  is  proper  for  those  who  are  little 
attracted  and  edified  by  this  mode  of  thought  to  urge 
that  it  supplies,  at  most,  but  the  moulds  into  which 
his  ideas  of  the  spiritual  life  are  run,  and  to  appeal 
to  those  more  mystical  expressions  of  its  truths 
which  find  place  outside  the  formal  development  of 
his  teaching  concerning  justification.  But  when  the 
interpreter  permits  his  distaste  for  legal  analogy  to 
lead  him  to  deny  its  predominance  in  Paul's  doc- 
trine, and  to  explain  away  the  natural  force  of  hie 
words  in  accordance  with  that  denial,  he  is  but  con- 
forming his  interpretation  to  theological  preposses- 
sion, and  making  impossible  a  sound  and  impartial 
exegesis  of  the  apostle's  writings.1  I  say  nothing 
of  the  theology  of  those  who  neglect  or  deny  this 
legal  quality  and  form  of  Pauline  thought,  but 
it  is  no  presumption  to  pronounce  their  exegesis 
incorrect. 

The  use  of  parallel  is  a  noticeable  quality  of 
Paul's  thinking.  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  be- 

1  1  may  refer  in  illustration  to  Sabatier's  depreciation  of  the 
forensic  character  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  (L'Apotre 
Paul,  p.  276  ;  Eng.  tr.  p.  299).  The  minimizing  of  this  element 
in  the  supposed  interests  of  a  more  spiritual  theology  detracts 
from  the  exegetical  value  of  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott's  Commentary  ot: 
Romans,  —  a  work  of  merit  in  other  respects.  See  especially 
pp.  36,  52-60. 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  47 

fore  he  enters  upon  the  exposition  of  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith,  he  prepares  the  way  for  the 
discussion  by  proving  that  men  cannot  be  justified 
by  works.  This  he  does  in  a  twofold  manner :  first, 
by  drawing  a  picture  of  the  depravity  of  the  Gen- 
tile world  (Rom.  i.  18-32)  which  would,  without 
special  argument,  be  sufficient  to  exclude  the  idea 
of  their  justification  by  merit;  then,  as  the  coun- 
terpart of  this,  he  enters  upon  an  arraignment 
of  the  Jew,  charging  him  with  the  commission 
of  the  same  sins  (ii.  1),  and  denying  to  him  any 
advantage  over  the  heathen  with  reference  to 
justification,  by  reason  of  his  possession  of  the  law 
(ii.  1-iii.  20). 

These  parallels  are  employed  for  the  more  forcible 
exhibition  of  some  single  truth  which  it  is  important 
to  hold  clearly  in  mind  in  their  interpretation.  The 
primary  object  in  the  instance  referred  to  is,  no 
doubt,  to  humble  the  pretensions  of  the  Jew  by  prov- 
ing that  he  stands  upon  the  same  moral  plane  with 
the  heathen  and  must  accept  salvation  on  the  same 
terms.  In  order  to  do  this,  it  is  necessary  to  bring 
out  several  points  of  comparison.  It  must  be  shown 
that  both  alike  have  sinned,  and  equally  against 
light.  It  is  involved  in  this  fact  that  the  Gentiles, 
who  had  no  written  law  like  the  Mosaic  system,  had 
nevertheless  a  certain  moral  guide  in  conscience, 
which  rendered  their  lives  blameworthy.  This  ana- 
logue of  the  Old  Testament  law  was  sufficient  to 
condemn  their  conduct ;  how  much  more,  then,  would 


48  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  law  condemn  the  conduct  of  the  Jew!  More- 
over, it  offered  to  the  Gentile  the  same  opportunity 
to  gain  justification  by  obedience  as  the  written  law 
afforded  to  the  Jew.  A  perfect  obedience  to  such 
law  as  the  heathen  had  would  avail  as  much  as  per- 
fect obedience  to  his  law  on  the  part  of  the  Jew. 
Thus  both  stood  upon  precisely  the  same  plane ;  to 
both  the  same  requirement  came;  the  same  princi- 
ples apply  to  both  (ii.  12  »<?.). 

When,  now,  the  single  purpose  of  the  apostle  in 
this  argument  is  lost  sight  of,  and  it  is  sought  to 
determine  whether  he  supposed  that  some  Gentiles 
were  saved,  and  if  so,  in  what  way,  the  effort  is 
made  to  apply  the  language  to  questions  which  were 
not  in  the  writer's  mind,  and  leads  to  forced  inter- 
pretations of  his  words.  He  simply  teaches  that 
both  Gentiles  and  Jews  are  great  sinners  and  cannot 
merit  salvation.  Both  alike,  if  they  obtain  it,  must 
do  so  on  the  principle  of  grace,  not  of  desert.  His 
language  involves  the  view  that  all  who  are  saved 
from  either  class  are  saved  by  grace  upon  condition 
of  faith.  How  many  of  each  are  saved,  or  what  de- 
gree of  light  was  necessary  in  each  case,  or  exactly 
what  was  the  object  of  their  faith,  are  interesting 
questions  of  theological  speculation;  but  Paul  has 
not  considered  them  or  said  anything  relating  to 
them  in  this  whole  discussion.  He  is  developing  a 
principle,  —  no  salvation  by  works,  —  in  order  to  pave 
the  way  for  the  establishment  of  another, — salvation 
by  grace  through  faith,  —  and  is  not  treating  those 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  49 

concrete  and  historical  questions  for  which  it  is  often 
sought  to  find  an  answer  in  his  words. 

The  most  famous  instance  of  this  mode  of  Paul's 
thought  is  found  in  the  parallel  between  Adam  and 
Christ  in  Rom.  v.  12-21.  Here  the  primary  ob- 
ject is  to  exhibit  the  greatness  of  the  grace  of  God  in 
Christ  by  setting  it  in  contrast  with  the  reign  of  sin 
and  death  in  natural  humanity.  The  passage  has 
been  ordinarily  treated  in  theology  as  if  its  purpose 
had  been  to  define  a  doctrine  of  original  sin.  The 
sway  of  sin  and  death  is  used  but  as  a  background  in 
order  to  paint  in  more  glowing  colors  the  reign  of 
righteousness  in  Christ.  The  superior  greatness  of 
the  power  of  grace  as  against  that  of  sin  and  death  is 
emphasized  not  less  than  three  times  in  the  course  of 
the  parallel.  The  primary  object  of  the  passage  is 
thus  to  exhibit  the  contrast  between  the  two  opposing 
principles  of  sin  and  grace,  and  to  show  the  supe- 
rior power  of  the  latter.  The  key-note  of  the  whole 
is :  "  Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  abound  more  ex- 
ceedingly "  (verse  20).  But  the  Adam  side  of  the  par- 
allel has  been  so  exclusively  emphasized  in  theology 
that  a  passage  which  was  to  Paul  an  exultant  paean 
of  joy  and  triumph  has  been  made  a  message  of  con- 
demnation and  sentence  of  doom  to  mankind,  because 
its  thoughts  have  been  thrown  out  of  adjustment,  and 
a  wholly  misplaced  emphasis  laid  upon  the  words  in 
consequence  of  neglecting  the  essential  point  on 
which  the  whole  comparison  turns.  Such  interpre- 
tation is  like  that  which  builds  doctrines  upon  the 

4 


50  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

incidents  of  parables,  and  which,  consistently  carried 
out,  finds  Christ  commending  shameless  imperti- 
nence in  the  parable  of  the  Unjust  Judge,  and 
praising  trickery  and  deceit  in  that  of  the  Unjust 
Steward. 

Another  example  of  parallelism  is  found  in  the 
analogy  which  is  traced  between  the  natural  and 
spiritual  in  1  Cor.  xv.  35-49,  and  upon  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  spiritual  body  is  based.  The  parallel 
is  traced  through  various  steps.  There  is  (a)  The 
relation  between  the  seed-grain  and  its  product,  and 
the  analogy  between  this  relation  and  that  of  the  pres- 
ent to  the  future  body  (verses  35-38).  (b)  He  illus- 
trates the  variety  of  embodiments  which  have  been 
provided  for  God's  creatures  in  the  natural  world, 
from  which  fact  the  inference  is  that  there  will 
be  embodiments  for  souls  fitted  to  their  celestial 
state  (verses  39-44).  (c)  Next  the  contrast  between 
Adam  and  Christ  as  heads  of  humanity  is  briefly 
mentioned  (verse  45);  and  (d)  the  natural  order 
as  preceding  and  preparing  for  the  spiritual  order 
suggests  that  there  is  a  spiritual  corporeity  to  fol- 
low and  consummate  that  in  which  we  now  dwell 
(verses  46-49). 

Other  examples  of  undeveloped  parallelism  exist, 
but  need  not  be  considered  here.  The  point  of  chief 
importance  is  that  the  apostle's  language  is  to  be  in 
terpreted  in  accordance  with  his  characteristic  forms 
of  thought  and  modes  of  argument.  To  overlook 
these  is  to  neglect  an  essential  condition  of  perceiv- 


STYLE  AND  MODES  OF  THOUGHT  51 

ing  the  natural  force  and  relative  emphasis  of  his 
ideas.  It  should  be  remembered  that  exegesis  is  a 
study  of  form  as  well  as  of  matter.  Its  task  is  not 
merely  to  grasp  the  practical  contents  and  bearing  of 
the  passages  studied,  but  to  see,  as  it  were,  with  the 
author's  eyes,  to  apprehend  his  thoughts  in  all  the 
peculiarities  of  form  and  shades  of  emphasis  in 
which  he  has  himself  presented  them. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  SHAPING   FORCES   OF  PAUL'S   TEACHING 

PAUL  belonged  by  birth  and  education  to  the  "  strait- 
est  sect"  among  the  Jews  (Acts  xxvi.  5).  The  Phari- 
sees were  the  popular  and  most  influential  party  in  the 
nation,  and  best  represented  the  spirit  of  post'exilian 
Judaism.  They  were  rigid  adherents  of  tradition  and 
sticklers  for  a  strict  interpretation  and  observance  of 
the  law.  The  natural  consequence  of  this  temper  was 
that  they  encouraged  an  ostentatious  piety  and  made 
the  religious  life  to  consist  in  a  system  of  rules 
many  of  which  rested  upon  the  most  superficial 
distinctions.  But  with  all  their  formalities  and  follies, 
they  were  by  no  means  wholly  devoid  of  conscien- 
tiousness and  real  religious  zeal.  They  had  indeed 
carried  the  duties  of  religion  almost  exclusively  into 
the  external  sphere ;  but  they  retained  a  certain  con- 
sistency and  devotion  in  their  performance  which 
when  enlightened  and  directed  would  become  essen- 
tial elements  of  high  religious  character.  They  were 
proud  and  self-righteous,  but,  mingled  with  these 
qualities,  was  an  abhorrence  of  the  corruption  of  the 
heathen  world,  and  a  revulsion  of  feeling  from  what 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING        53 

they  conceived  to  be  the  prevailing  uncleanness  of 
their  own  nation.  Their  name,  Pharisees,  meaning 
Separatists,  was  perhaps  attached  to  them  in  blame 
for  their  exclusiveness,  but  it  also  represented  char- 
acteristics which  had  their  good  side,  and  which  were 
capable  of  being  so  ennobled  as  to  become  qualities  of 
real  moral  worth. 

There  was  indeed  much  to  censure  in  the  Phari- 
sees. Their  formality,  hypocrisy,  and  bondage  to 
tradition  justly  exposed  them  to  the  rebukes  which 
they  received  from  Jesus.  But  these  faults  were  the 
faults  of  the  nation  as  a  whole.  They  were  an  index 
of  the  moral  temper  of  the  times.  They  exemplified 
the  travesty  of  religion  which  springs  from  mis- 
directed zeal ;  the  sad  perversion  of  man's  highest 
capacities  which  arises  when  duty  is  removed  from 
its  true  center,  and  the  high  qualities  of  conscien- 
tiousness and  earnestness  degraded  by  being  directed 
toward  false  or  trivial  objects. 

In  spite  of  their  marked  faults,  the  Pharisees  as  a 
party  still  cherished  certain  beliefs  of  great  religious 
value.  They  believed  in  a  spiritual  world  and  in  the 
immortality  of  the  soul  (Acts  xxiii.  8).  In  this  re- 
spect they  represented,  as  compared  with  the  more 
aristocratic  and  worldly  Sadducees,  the  higher  relig- 
ious standpoint  of  later  Judaism.  Their  notion  of 
the  world  of  spirits  was  no  doubt  extravagant,  but 
it  formed  a  better  basis  for  a  spiritual  religion  than 
the  theory  which  bounds  the  horizon  of  life  by  the 
limits  of  this  world.  The  Pharisees,  then,  were  a 


54  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

distinctively  religious  sect.  Their  aim  was  to  carry 
out  the  law  strictly.  They  regarded  all  interests 
from  a  religious  point  of  view,  however  inadequate 
by  reason  of  misconception  that  point  of  view  might 
be.  However  much  they  failed  to  realize  the  true 
idea  of  religion  as  a  life  of  love  and  service,  —  and 
they  certainly  did  grossly  fail  to  do  so,  —  they  cher- 
ished certain  truths  and  cultivated  certain  traits  which 
under  new  conditions  were  fitted  to  become  a  useful 
starting-point  for  true  religion  and  theology.1 

It  was  under  the  influence  of  this  sect  and,  indeed, 
under  the  direct  instruction  of  one  of  its  most  hon- 
ored representatives,  Gamaliel,  that  Paul  received 
his  early  education  (Acts  xxii.  3).  That  celebrated 
doctor  was  one  of  the  most  moderate  and  enlightened 
men  of  his  class,  and  on  one  occasion  warned  his 
countrymen  in  an  impartial  and  humane  spirit  against 
the  fanatical  zeal  with  which  they  opposed  Christian- 
ity (Acts  v.  34  «£.).  He  embodied  the  best  elements 
of  Phariseeism,  and  must  have  exercised  a  strong 
influence  upon  his  pupil  from  Tarsus.  The  supposi- 
tion that  Gamaliel  was  a  Christian,  or  that  he  was 
secretly  inclined  toward  Christianity  and  afterward 
espoused  it,  are  fictions  of  ecclesiastical  tradition 
which  rest  upon  no  evidence,  and  are  in  themselves 
improbable.  Although  Paul  was  born  and  lived  dur- 
ing his  early  boyhood  in  a  city  where  Greek  influences 
and  culture  predominated,  his  education  was  in  the 

1  Cf.  Schiirer,  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Christ,  Divi- 
sion IL  vol.  ii.  pp.  10-28. 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING       55 

sacred  city  of  his  ancestral  religion,  and  was  con- 
ducted according  to  the  methods,  and  limited  to  the 
range,  which  belonged  to  the  best  Jewish  schools  of 
the  period.  His  parents  were  Roman  citizens  (Acts 
xvi.  37 ;  xxii.  25-29),  and  the  place  of  his  birth 
made  Greek  his  native  language ;  but  while  these 
facts  cannot  have  been  without  their  influence  upon 
his  development,  they  furnish  no  ground  for  the  com- 
mon opinion  that  Paul  was  learned  in  the  Roman 
law  or  in  Greek  literature.  His  training  during  his 
youth  moved  within  the  sphere  of  Old  Testament  and 
rabbinic  thought,  and  formed  the  habits  of  his  mind 
according  to  Jewish  models.  This  statement  is  abun- 
dantly illustrated  and  confirmed  by  his  characteristic 
conceptions  and  modes  of  argument  in  his  epistles. 
The  fact  would  be  misconceived,  however,  by  any 
who  should  suppose  that  his  Jewish  education  oper- 
ated as  a  permanent  check  or  barrier  to  the  indepen- 
dent application  of  his  mind  to  new  subjects  and  to 
its  adjustment  to  new  points  of  view.  His  extended 
and  repeated  journeys  through  various  parts  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  combined  with  the  native  freshness 
and  vigor  of  his  mind,  would  preclude  anything  like 
imitation  or  routine  thinking  in  his  case.  We  accord- 
ingly find  in  his  letters  Jewish  modes  of  thought  and 
styles  of  argument  applied  with  a  striking  freedom 
to  new  subjects,  and  wrought  out  in  new  combinations. 
While,  therefore,  it  is  certain  that  no  explanation  of 
the  type  of  his  theology  can  be  adequate  which  ne- 
glects to  take  account  of  his  rabbinic  education,  it  id 


56  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

equally  certain  that  his  teaching  is  marked  by  an 
individuality  and  independence  which  prove  him  to 
have  been  the  master,  and  not  the  servant,  of  the 
ideas  and  arguments  with  which  he  had  been  in- 
doctrinated in  his  youth. 

In  recent  times  elaborate  attempts  have  been  made 
to  prove  that  Greek  thought,  especially  as  it  was 
developed  at  Alexandria,  exercised  an  important  in- 
fluence upon  the  apostle's  teaching.  Parallels  have 
been  traced  between  his  ideas  and  those  of  Philo,1 
and  coincidences  of  thought  are  pointed  out  between 
his  epistles  and  certain  apocryphal  books.  Many  of 
these  comparisons  are  interesting  and  instructive ;  but 
a  candid  effort  to  give  to  them  their  full  weight  in 
evidence  leaves  me  far  from  convinced  of  the  justice 
of  the  conclusions  which  are  drawn  from  them.  They 
do  not  appear  to  me  to  prove  more  than  that  systems 
which  grow  up  under  similar  conditions  and  subject 
to  the  same  general  influences  will  present  points  of 
similarity.  There  are  coincidences  of  idea  and  of 
interpretation  between  Paul  and  Philo ;  but  they  are 
too  slight  and  superficial,  when  compared  with  the 
fundamental  and  radical  differences  of  their  respective 
systems,  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  Paul's  opin- 
ions had  been  in  any  important  degree  influenced  by 
those  of  the  Alexandrian  philosopher.  This  fact  is 
indeed  fully  recognized  by  Siegfried  in  treating  of  the 
relation  of  Philonic  to  New  Testament  thought  in 
general.  He  says, — 

1  See,  for  example,  Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alexandria,  p.  308  sq. 


SHAPING  FORCES  OP  PAUL'S  TEACHING       57 

"  Common  to  both  is  the  effort  to  bring  about  a  higher 
union  of  Jew  and  Gentile.  Both  have  the  important  idea 
of  an  intermediate  being,  connecting  God  and  the  world, 
God  and  man.  They  have  similar  views  of  the  utter 
sinfulness  of  the  human  race,  and  of  the  ethical  problem 
set  before  it ;  namely,  how  to  become  pure  from  sin.  But 
by  the  side  of  these  features  of  resemblance  there  exist 
deep  and  far-reaching  differences.  Philo's  idea  of  God 
is  more  Gentile-philosophic  than  biblical ;  while  in  that 
of  the  New  Testament  appear  the  traits  of  the  living  God 
of  Israel.  The  Logos-doctrine  of  Philo  leans  toward  the 
pantheistic  conception,  while  that  of  the  New  Testament 
abides  throughout  on  the  soil  of  theism.  In  respect  to 
ethics,  the  view  which  places  evil  exclusively  in  the  bodily 
nature  is  altogether  alien  to  the  New  Testament."  * 

A  representative  example  of  the  efforts  to  show 
that  Paulinism  is  a  composite  of  Jewish  and  Hellenic 
ideas  may  be  found  in  Pfleiderer's  work  entitled,  Das 
Urchristenthum2  It  is  the  author's  opinion  that  Paul 
was  not  directly  acquainted  with  Philo's  writings,  but 
that  he  knew  and  largely  used  a  writing  which  may 
be  considered  as  a  forerunner  of  the  Philonic  philoso- 
phy of  religion, — the  apocryphal  Book  of  Wisdom. 
Some  coincidences  —  none  of  which  appear  to  me 
especially  striking  —  are  pointed  out ;  but  though  one 
give  to  them  the  most  favorable  estimate,  they  appear 
to  fall  far  short  of  establishing  the  derivation  of  one 

1  Philo  von  Alexandria,  p.  304.  An  interesting  and  instructive 
essay  on  this  subject,  entitled  Saint  Paul  and  Philo,  may  be  found 
appended  to  Jowett's  Commentary  on  Galatians. 

a  Quellen  der  paulinischen  Theologie,  pp.  158-178. 


58  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

series  in  the  comparison  from  the  other.  We  com- 
mend to  the  student  of  the  subject  a  careful  reading 
of  the  Book  of  Wisdom  with  close  attention  to  its 
points  of  contact  with  Pauline  teaching.  We  appre- 
hend that  few  will  discover  in  it  a  closer  resemblance 
to  Paul's  epistles  than  would,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  exist  between  literary  products  growing,  as  it 
were,  upon  the  same  soil.  That  the  book  in  question 
played  any  important  part  in  shaping  the  apostle's 
theology,  appears  to  my  mind  a  proposition  singularly 
destitute  of  proof.  Until  far  more  convincing  evi- 
dence is  adduced  of  a  potent  influence  of  Alexan- 
drian speculation  and  kindred  forms  of  thought 
upon  Paul's  mind,  we  shall  still  be  required  to  seek 
the  shaping  forces  of  his  thought,  first,  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  later  developments  of  Jewish 
thought,  and,  second,  in  his  own  vigorous  and  in- 
dependent reflection  upon  the  content  of  his  newly 
received  faith,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
of  truth. 

The  Old  Testament  was  his  chief  text-book  in  the 
Jewish  schools,  and  continued  to  be  to  him  a  great 
storehouse  of  facts  and  arguments  for  his  work  as  a 
Christian  teacher.  He  was  trained,  no  doubt,  in  the 
methods  of  interpretation  which  were  current  among 
the  rabbis  of  his  time,  in  which  the  free  use  of  type 
and  allegory,  often  to  the  entire  neglect  of  the  primary 
and  historical  sense,  was  one  of  the  most  prominent 
characteristics.  Rabbinic  modes  of  exegesis  had  their 
influence  upon  his  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING       59 

have  left  clear  traces  in  his  epistles.1  But  to  the 
student  who  considers  his  training,  the  matter  of 
chief  surprise  is,  not  that  his  mind  should  have  been 
influenced  by  rabbinic  interpretation,  but  that  he 
should  have  been  so  free  from  its  extravagances,  and 
should  have  employed  its  methods  so  sparingly  and 
with  so  much  reserve. 

An  instructive  example  of  the  allegorical  method 
of  applying  Old  Testament  narratives  is  found  in  Gal. 
iv.  21-31,  where  the  descendants  of  Hagar  and  Sarah 
are  made  to  represent  respectively  the  Old  and  the 
New  Covenants.  This  application  is  the  more  fitting 
to  the  apostle's  mind  because  Sinai  —  the  symbol  of 
the  law  —  is  situated  in  Arabia,  the  land  of  Hagar's 
descendants.2  It  cannot  fairly  be  doubted  that  Paul 
considers  the  history  connected  with  Hagar  and  Sarah 
in  their  relation  to  Abraham  to  have  an  allegorical 
meaning  and  to  afford  a  typical  parallel  to  the  rela- 
tion of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  systems.  The 

1  Cf.  Immer,  Das  Jiidische  in  der  Lehre  des  Paulus  in  his 
Theotogie  des  Neuen  Testaments,  pp.  247-257. 

2  I  here  follow  the  reading  of  Tischendorf  in  verse  25,  cf.  marg. 
R.  V.     If  the  word'Ayap  is  inserted  in  this  verse  (so  Westcott  and 
Hort),  the  sense  then  is  that  the  name  "  Hagar  "  was  applied  as  a 
designation  to  Mount  Sinai,  of  which  no  satisfactory  proof  has  been 
found.     The  word  is  attested  by  A  B  D  E  K  L  P,  most  cursives, 
and  Chrysostom;  omitted  by  x  C  F  G  17,  It.  Vulg.  JDth.  Arm. 
vss.,  and  the  Latin  fathers  generally.     Some  who  insert  the  word 
here,  understand  the  sense  to  be :  This  word  "  Hagar  "  (TO  *Ay«/>) 
represents  Mount  Sinai  (because  Mount  Sinai  is  in  Arabia,  the 
land  of  Hagar).     In  this  view  the  reading  yields  the  same  sense 
as  the  other.     See  Light  foot,  Galatians,  p.  193  sq. 


60 

argument  is  thus  determined  in  its  form  by  current 
habits  of  rabbinic  interpretation ;  but  this  form  is 
not,  in  any  case,  essential  to  the  appropriateness  and 
validity  of  the  analogy  which  the  apostle  is  tracing. 
The  essential  point  is  that  Abraham's  two  sons,  from 
the  circumstances  of  their  birth,  may  be  fitly  contem- 
plated as  representing  the  two  principles  of  bondage 
and  freedom,  which  are  the  characteristics  of  the  two 
covenants  respectively.  Ishmael,  as  the  son  of  a 
bond- woman,  is  a  child  Kara  <rdpica,  and  represents  the 
system  which  engenders  bondage ;  Isaac,  as  the  son  of 
Sarah,  born  in  fulfilment  of  a  divine  promise,  —  Sia 
T»7<?  etrayyeXias, —  fitly  represents  the  covenant  of 
promise  and  freedom.  Whether  Paul  regarded  the 
history  in  question  as  containing  this  allegorical  sig- 
nificance, or  merely  as  capable  of  such  an  application, 
his  resort  in  this  place  to  this  form  of  rabbinic  exe- 
gesis is  certain.  It  is  also  to  be  borne  in  mind  how 
infrequently  he  has  recourse  to  it. 

An  instance  in  which  the  apostle  departs  more 
noticeably  from  the  historical  sense  in  the  interest  of 
a  special  application  of  Old  Testament  Scripture  is 
found  in  1  Cor.  ix.  9,  10,  where  he  interprets  the 
Mosaic  precept,  "Thou  shalt  not  muzzle  the  mouth 
of  the  ox  when  he  treadeth  out  the  corn,"  as  applying, 
not  to  oxen,  for  God  is  not  making  oxen  an  object  of 
solicitude,  but  to  the  care  and  support  which  are  to 
be  accorded  to  preachers  of  the  gospel.  That  Paul 
here  overlooks  and  counts  of  little  importance  the 
obvious  historical  sense  in  the  case  of  this  merciful 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING        61 

provision  for  the  cattle  when  engaged  in  threshing,  is 
beyond  question.  Whether  he  wholly  denies  the  his- 
torical sense  depends  chiefly  upon  the  meaning  of 
irdvrois  (verse  10).  If  it  means  "  wholly,"  " altogether" 
(A.  V.,  R.  V.,  Stanley,  Meyer,  De  Wette,  Weiss),— 
its  usual  meaning  in  the  New  Testament,  —  then  the 
passage  means  that  in  the  maxim  in  question  God  is 
not  concerning  himself  about  the  needs  or  welfare  of 
oxen,  but  gives  the  precept  altogether  for  the  sake 
of  preachers,  Paul  and  his  associates,  and  the  histori- 
cal sense  is  excluded.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  irdvrw<j 
means  "certainly,"  "doubtless,"  the  sense  may  be 
that  the  maxim  has  a  reference  and  application  to 
preachers,  without  asserting  that  it  had  no  other. 
The  emphasis  would  then  be  upon  the  certainty  of  its 
having  such  a  reference,  and  not  upon  the  exclusive- 
ness  of  that  application  (so  marg.  R.  V.). 

Upon  this  meaning  of  Trayrw?,  it  is  possible  to  main- 
tain, with  Godet  and  Neander,  that  Paul  here  merely 
subordinates  the  historical  to  the  allegorical  sense 
without  rejecting  the  former.  So  far  as  the  argument 
for  this  meaning  of  the  word  is  concerned,  it  is  proper 
to  appeal  to  Luke  iv.  23  :  "  Doubtless  [Trayrco?]  ye  will 
say  to  me  this  parable,  etc. ; "  Acts  xxi.  22,  "  They 
will  certainly  (Veu/Ta)?]  hear  that  thou  art  come  ; "  and 
xxviii.  4,  "No  doubt  \_irdvTa>i\  this  man  is  a  mur- 
derer." Such  is  the  meaning  in  the  three  instances 
in  which  Luke  employs  the  word.  Paul  uses  it  five 
times,  —  once  in  Romans  (iii.  9),  and  four  times  in 
1  Corinthians  (v.  10 ;  ix.  10, 22 ;  xvi.  12).  In  all  these 


62  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

cases,  unless  our  passage  be  an  exception,  it  has  the 
meaning  "  wholly,"  "  entirely,"  "  altogether."  Consid- 
erations from  Pauline  usage  would  therefore  favor  this 
meaning,  but  in  themselves  are  not  decisive.  When, 
however,  we  consider  how  Paul  puts  the  alternative, 
"Is  it  for  the  oxen  that  God  careth,  or  saith  he  it 
[altogether]  for  our  sake  ? "  it  seems  plain  that  he 
considers  the  choice  to  lie  between  the  application  to 
oxen  and  that  to  Christian  teachers.  If  the  maxim 
is  declared  not  to  relate  to  oxen,  the  historical  sense 
is  set  aside  and  the  allegorical  substituted.  This  use 
of  the  passage  is  also  found  in  rabbinic  writings  (see 
Meyer  in  loco).1 

Of  the  way  in  which  an  argument,  in  the  methods 
of  the  Jewish  schools,  was  made  to  turn  on  a  word,  we 
have  an  interesting  example  in  Gal.  iii.  16,  where  the 
Old  Testament  statement  that  the  promises  were 
made  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed  (Gen.  xiii.  15 ;  xvii. 
8)  is  interpreted  to  mean  that  they  relate  to  Christ, 
because  the  passage  uses  the  singular  "  seed,"  and  not 
the  plural  "  seeds,"  referring  therefore  to  one  (Christ), 
and  not  to  many.  Here  also  we  may  distinguish  the 
rabbinic  form  from  the  underlying  idea,  which  is 
separable  from  the  form  and  could  have  been  brought 
out  without  the  use  of  it.  It  was  the  apostle's  pro- 
found and  true  conviction  that  the  idea  of  the  Mes- 

1  Luther's  explanation  escapes  the  natural  meaning  of  the 
words  with  a  native  simplicity  which  is  all  its  own :  "  God  cares 
for  all  things,  but  he  does  not  care  that  anything  should  be  written 
for  oxen,  seeing  they  cannot  read." 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING       63 

siah  was  veiled  in  the  Abrahamic  promise.  That  the 
promises  given  to  Abraham  and  to  his  seed  looked 
forward  to  Christ,  and  in  the  light  of  later  revelation 
could  be  truly  read  as  referring  to  him,  is  the  point 
of  chief  importance.  But  the  form  in  which  he  is  led 
to  express  this  view  cannot  be  derived  from  the  Old 
Testament  passage,  where  the  term  "  seed  "  is  a  col- 
lective noun,  except  by  the  application  of  those  meth- 
ods of  finding  occult  meanings  in  words  which  were 
current  in  Paul's  time,  and  in  which  he  had  in  early 
life  been  instructed. 

These  examples  will  serve  to  show  how  character- 
istically and  thoroughly  Jewish  was  the  apostle's 
education,  and  at  the  same  time  how  little  he  was 
enslaved  to  his  training.  The  presence  of  these  in- 
stances of  rabbinic  exposition,  in  all  of  which  the 
underlying  thought  could  have  been  well  established 
and  enforced  apart  from  the  form  employed  for 
its  presentation,  serves  but  to  tinge  the  epistles  of 
Paul  with  rabbinic  thought ;  but  the  coloring,  slight 
though  it  is,  bears  unmistakable  testimony  to  the 
character  of  that  training  whose  influence  time  and 
change  could  never  wholly  destroy.  It  was  usual  for 
Paul  as  a  Hellenistic  Jew  to  quote  from  the  Septua- 
gint,  following  its  language  more  or  less  closely,  and 
to  apply  passages  freely,  if  fitting  in  their  substance, 
to  different  objects  from  those  to  which  they  relate 
in  the  Old  Testament  itself.  A  convenient  example, 
which  is  in  every  way  a  fair  representative,  is  found 
in  Rom.  ii.  24  (Is.  Hi.  5) :  "  For  the  name  of  God  is 


64  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

blasphemed  among  the  Gentiles  because  of  you." 
Here  the  apostle  follows  the  Septuagint,  which  has 
added  to  the  original  the  phrases  "among  the  Gen- 
tiles "  and  "  because  of  you."  The  original  passage 
is  simply,  "  My  name  continually  all  the  day  is  blas- 
phemed," and  the  reference  is  to  the  blasphemy  of 
Jehovah's  name  by  the  enemies  of  Israel,  who  claim 
that  he  is  unable  to  save  the  nation.  The  apostle 
applies  it  to  the  contempt  for  God  which  the  corrup- 
tion of  the  professed  people  of  God  (the  Jews)  would 
occasion  in  the  heathen.  Thus  the  Septuagint  addi- 
tions —  "  because  of  you  "  and  "  among  the  Gentiles  " 
—  made  the  passage  more  pointed  and  fitting  for  the 
apostle's  use  than  the  briefer  original  could  have 
been.  The  words  which  picture  the  action  of  Israel's 
enemies  during  the  exile  as  fitly  apply  to  the  actions 
which  Israel's  sins  will  occasion  in  the  Greek  and 
Roman  world  of  a  later  age. 

One  further  example  of  Paul's  freedom  in  citing 
the  Old  Testament,  especially  when  influenced  by  the 
renderings  of  the  Septuagint,  will  suffice.  In  1  Cor. 
ii.  9,  we  read :  "  As  it  is  written,  Things  which  eye 
saw  not,  and  ear  heard  not,  and  which  entered  not 
into  the  heart  of  man,  whatsoever  things  God  pre- 
pared for  them  that  love  him."  From  the  fact  that 
only  remote  resemblances  to  this  language  are  found 
in  the  Old  Testament  it  has  been  thought  by  many 
(following  Origen)  that  some  extra-canonical  or 
apocryphal  book  is  here  quoted.  Meyer  (in  loco) 
says, — 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING        65 

"  Since  it  is  only  passages  from  the  canonical  Scrip- 
tures that  are  ever  cited  by  Paul  with  »ca0o>s  yeypaTrrai,  we 
must  at  the  same  time  assume  that  he  intended  to  do  so 
here  also,  but  by  some  confusion  of  memory  took  the 
apocryphal  saying  for  a  canonical  passage,  possibly  from 
the  prophecies,  to  which  the  passages  of  kindred  sound 
in  Isaiah  might  easily  give  occasion." 

Weiss  holds  the  same  opinion.1  Schiirer  thinks  that 
the  passage  was  taken  from  a  lost  Jewish  Apocalypse 
of  Elijah,  to  which  Origen  and  others  had  assigned 
it,  and  appeals  to  the  quotation  of  the  Book  of  Enoch 
by  Jude.2 

It  has  been  more  commonly  held  —  and  we  think 
this  opinion  preferable  —  that  Paul  has  in  mind  the 
language  of  Is.  Ixiv.  4  (cf.  lii.  15)  :  "  For  from  of 
old  men  have  not  heard,  nor  perceived  by  the  ear, 
neither  hath  the  eye  seen  a  God  beside  thee,  which 
worketh  for  him  that  waiteth  for  him."  The  Septua- 
gint  gives  a  free  translation  by  which  the  passage  is 
rendered  more  general  and  indefinite,  thus :  "  From 
of  old  we  have  not  heard,  nor  have  our  eyes  seen  a 
God  beside  thee,  and  thy  works  which  thou  wilt  do 
for  those  who  wait  for  thy  mercy."  In  the  original, 
the  prophet,  amid  the  desolations  of  the  exile,  de- 
scribes the  help  which  Jehovah  is  capable  of  ren- 
dering his  people  who  wait  faithfully  upon  him. 
No  deliverance  has  ever  been  witnessed  which  can 
equal  that  which  Jehovah  will  accomplish  if  his 

1  Bib.  Theol.  §  74  b,  note  7. 

2  Jewish  People,  Division  II.  vol.  iii.  130. 

5 


66  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

people  remain  true  to  him.  The  apostle  seizes  the 
thought  of  the  greatness  of  God's  spiritual  mer- 
cies, and  adapts  this  expression  of  it  to  his  pur- 
pose by  laying  a  new  emphasis  upon  the  statement 
that  they  are  not  perceived  by  eye,  ear,  and  heart, 
but  revealed  to  the  human  spirit  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.  In  the  original  it  was  said  that  eye  had  not 
seen,  nor  ear  heard,  the  deliverance  hoped  for,  be- 
cause of  its  unparalleled  greatness ;  in  Paul's  use 
of  the  words,  eye  and  ear  (and  to  these  the  apos- 
tle adds  "  the  heart ")  do  not  perceive  the  heavenly 
wisdom  revealed  in  the  gospel  because  they  are  not 
adequate  to  do  so ;  only  the  revealing  Spirit  can  make 
them  known.  The  common  thought  in  both  cases  is 
the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  blessings  which  God  has 
in  store  for  his  people.  In  the  original,  the  eye  has 
not  seen  them  because  there  are  greater  mercies  yet 
to  come.  In  Paul's  application,  it  has  not  seen  them 
because  they  surpass  its  power;  God  himself  must 
reveal  them  in  the  life  of  the  spirit.1 

This  example  aptly  illustrates  the  following  points 
touching  Paul's  training  in  the  Old  Testament  and  his 
use  of  the  same  in  argument  and  exposition  of  doc- 
trine :  (1)  He  bestows  no  pains  upon  citing  the  exact 

1  Other  examples,  presenting  points  of  similarity  with  that 
which  we  have  considered,  are :  1  Cor.  xv.  55  (cf.  Hosea  xiii. 
14)  and  especially  Eph.  v.  14  (cf.  Is.  Ix.  1),  where,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  many,  some  lost  writing  is  cited,  but  which,  we  think,  can 
be  more  naturally  explained  as  a  free  adaptation  of  Old  Testa- 
ment language.  So  Toy,  Quotations  in  the  New  Testament,  in  loco ; 
Weiss,  Bib.  Theol,  f  74.  b,  note  7,  vs.  Meyer  in  loco. 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING        67 

words  either  of  the  original  or  of  the  Septuagint.1 
(2)  He  seizes  the  idea,  often  without  reference  to  its 
immediate  setting,  and  employs  it  freely  for  the  pur- 
pose before  him,  making  such  adaptations  in  form, 
emphasis,  and  application  as  that  purpose  may  re- 
quire. (3)  In  this  free  use  of  scriptural  language 
and  its  application  to  new  subjects,  there  is  a  fidelity 
to  the  idea  expressed  in  the  original  passage  which 
insures  a  true  point  of  contact  even  in  those  in- 
stances (like  the  foregoing)  where  the  historical  sense 
is  most  disregarded.2  (4)  The  apostle's  use  of  Scrip- 
ture is  dominated  by  the  profound  view  that  Israel's 
history  is  prophetic  and  Messianic  throughout,  so  that 
the  idea  and  hope  of  the  Messiah  are  held  to  per- 
vade the  Old  Testament  history  and  literature.  In 
this  connection  Weiss  truly  says, — 

1  It  should  be  mentioned  that  his  deviations  may  sometimes  be 
due  to  his  following  current  synagogue  readings  or  popular  Ara- 
maic oral  renderings.     Cf.  Toy,  Quotations,  Introduction,  p.  15. 

2  The  statement  of  Weiss  on  this  point  seems  extreme :  "  In 
the  use  that  he  makes  of  the  passages  of  Scripture,  he  pays  no 
attention  to  their  historical  references  or  to  their  connection ;  it 
is  only  their  language  that  he  takes  into  account "  (Bib.  TheoL 
§  74  c).     It  is  true   that   Paul  often   disregards  the  historical 
connection  entirely ;  but  in  the  use  of  Old  Testament  passages  he 
certainly  seeks  to  find  a  kinship  of  thought  with  the  argument  or 
exposition  which  he  is  conducting.     The  language  cannot  be  to 
him  the  main  thing,  since  he  so  frequently  disregards  its  form  ; 
the  underlying  idea,  which  is  kindred  to  the  thought  in  hand,  is 
the  matter  of  importance.     He  changes  the  language  freely  ;  he 
adapts  the  idea  to  new  situations ;  but  his  effort  is  always  to  pre- 
serve and  enforce  it. 


68  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

"  At  the  basis  of  this  practice  [that  of  following 
verbal  resemblances],  however,  there  lies  the  presup- 
position that,  on  the  one  side,  the  whole  of  Scripture 
prophesies  of  the  Messiah  and  the  events  of  the  Messi- 
anic time ;  so  that  everything  which  simply  admits  of 
being  applied  to  these  circumstances  is  interpreted  in  this 
sense,  and  that  too  as  a  direct  prophecy.  Thus  in  Ps. 
Ixix.  9,  the  Messiah  himself  is  conceived  of  as  speaking 
(Rom.  xv.  3),  and  Joel  ii.  32  is  applied  by  him,  as  well  as 
by  Peter  (Acts  ii.  21),  to  the  Messiah  (Rom.  x.  13). 
Even  passages  which,  like  these,  are  undoubtedly  Messi- 
anic in  the  wider  sense  appear  as  having  a  reference  to 
the  person  of  Jesus  which  is  originally  foreign  to  them 
(Rom.  ix.  33 ;  cf.  1  Pet.  ii.  6)." l 

But  that  which  is  of  chief  importance  in  this  con- 
nection is  that  the  apostle's  mind  was  penetrated 
with  Old  Testament  thought  and  permeated  by  the 
Old  Testament  spirit  in  its  highest  Messianic  import. 
He  saw  in  Christ  the  realization  of  the  ideals  and 
hopes  which  had  inspired  the  prophets  of  Israel ;  and 
it  was  one  of  the  purposes  of  his  letters  to  explain 
and  trace  this  fulfilment.  Exegetical  science  may 
indeed  demur  at  his  rendering  and  application  of 
texts ;  but  no  such  science  can  safely  neglect  the  fun- 
damental assumption  on  which  he  proceeds  in  dealing 
with  the  relation  between  the  gospel  and  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. They  are  related  as  the  fruit  to  the  blos- 
som. The  Old  Covenant  is  a  perpetual  prophecy  and 
guaranty  of  the  New.  It  takes  its  place  in  subordina- 

i  Bib.  Theol.  §  74  c. 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING        69 

tion  to  the  system  which  is  to  succeed  it,  and  has  its 
true  glory  in  that  it  ushers  in  the  superior  glory  of 
that  system  (2  Cor.  iii.  7-11).  After  his  conversion 
new  meanings  must  have  glowed  in  the  pages  of  the 
Old  Testament  as  Paul  read  it.  Not  only  were  its 
contents  now  suffused  with  new  light,  but  a  wholly  new 
view  of  its  design  is  developed  in  his  mind.  He 
now  sees  the  whole  reason  of  its  existence  in  the 
bringing  of  men  to  Christ.  The  positive  and  historic 
aims  of  deterring  from  wrong-doing  and  checking 
transgression,  which  had  always  been  associated  with 
the  law,  assume  a  secondary  place  in  the  light  of  its 
preparatory  and  Christological  purpose,  which  is  now 
seen.  The  origin  and  development  of  this  new  view 
of  the  subject  will  form  the  theme  of  a  subsequent 
chapter.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  point  out  how  great 
a  revolution  in  Paul's  view  of  the  Old  Testament 
must  have  been  wrought  by  his  Christian  thinking, 
and  what  new  and  striking  developments  of  Christian 
doctrine  were  now  possible  from  Old  Testament 
points  of  view.  The  Old  Testament,  in  which  he  had 
been  so  carefully  trained  as  a  Jewish  youth,  seen  in 
this  new  light  and  interpreted  as  a  record  of  God's 
methods  of  conducting  men  to  Christ,  becomes  to  the 
apostle  a  storehouse  of  facts  and  truths  whereby  the 
gospel  may  be  illustrated  and  confirmed ;  and  thus 
Paul's  knowledge  of  it,  filled  with  the  new  light  that 
had  penetrated  it  from  Christ,  became  one  of  the  most 
potent  forces  which  shaped  his  presentations  of 
doctrine. 


70  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

But  while  Paul  thus  carried  into  his  teaching  influ- 
ences and  impressions  which  he  had  received  in  his 
Jewish  education,  his  system  was,  in  an  important 
sense,  the  product  of  independent  reflection.  At  the 
time  of  his  conversion  the  Christian  community  was 
just  emerging  into  the  consciousness  of  that  freedom 
and  independence  which  Jesus  had  denned  in  his 
parabolic  saying  that  the  new  wine  of  his  kingdom 
was  not  to  be  put  into  the  old  bottles  of  Judaism 
(Mark  ii.  22),  and  in  his  teaching  concerning  fulfil- 
ment (Matt.  v.  17  sq. ).  It  appears  from  the  charges 
which  the  Jews  brought  against  the  Hellenist  Stephen 
(Acts  vi.  13,  14)  that  he  had  expressed  sentiments 
which  implied  the  temporary  character  of  the  Leviti- 
cal  system  and  the  completeness  and  sufficiency  of 
the  gospel.  The  problem  of  defining  the  relation  of 
the  gospel  to  the  Old  Testament  would  be  at  this 
juncture  no  easy  one.  How  could  the  law  be  said 
to  be  divine  and  temporary  at  the  same  time  ?  Could 
the  New  Testament  system  itself  be  saved  if  the  Old 
was  abandoned  ?  Those  who  had  grown  up  in  Juda- 
ism and  had  experienced  no  special  shock  or  revolu- 
tion of  feeling  and  opinion  in  passing  into  Christianity 
would  have  less  sense  of  the  difference  between  the 
two.  To  such,  Christianity  would  seem  but  another 
form  of  Judaism,  an  appendix  to  it  or  an  infusion  of 
new  life  into  its  old  forms.  Hence  they  would  be 
tenacious  of  its  rites.  Its  ceremony  of  initiation  into 
the  community — circumcision  —  would  in  their  judg- 
ment be  a  necessary  condition  for  entering  the  Church 


SHAPING  FORCES  OP  PAUL'S  TEACHING       71 

from  the  heathen  world.  The  most  excellent  and 
enlightened  men  among  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem 
shared,  to  some  extent,  these  convictions.  They 
understood,  indeed,  that  the  gospel  was  to  be  offered 
to  all  men ;  but  it  was  with  difficulty  that  they  con- 
sented to  the  view  that  all  should  receive  it  upon  the 
same  simple  condition,  —  faith  in  Christ  (cf.  Acts  x. 
14 ;  xv.  1 ;  Gal.  ii.  11-16).  It  was  Paul  who  led  the 
infant  Church  out  of  the  mazes  of  this  perplexing 
problem.  It  was  he  who  sharply  defined  the  true 
relation  of  the  Christian  community  to  the  Old  Cove- 
nant, clearly  contrasted  the  law  and  faith  as  princi- 
ples of  salvation,  and  by  rebuking  all  inconsistency 
with  their  professed  trust  in  Christ  on  the  part  of 
other  Christian  teachers,  and  refuting  the  opinions 
of  those  who  were  fanatically  opposed  to  his  doctrine 
of  freedom  from  the  law  (Gal.  ii.  4;  Acts  xv.  24), 
both  determined  the  doctrine  and  shaped  the  course 
of  the  early  Church  in  reference  to  the  subject. 

The  mode  of  Paul's  conversion  in  connection  with 
his  previous  course  of  life  must  have  powerfully  inten- 
sified his  sense  of  the  difference  between  the  law 
dispensation  and  the  gospel.  What  it  was  to  live 
nnder  the  law,  to  feel  its  yoke  without  being  able  to 
do  its  requirements,  he  well  knew  from  long  and 
bitter  experience.  The  revelation  of  Christ  to  him 
had  been  the  message  of  release  to  his  burdened 
spirit.  In  the  gospel,  with  its  principles  of  grace  and 
faith,  he  had  found  freedom  and  peace.  No  wonder, 
then,  that  to  him  there  was  a  world-wide  difference 


72  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

between  the  state  of  men  under  the  law  and  that 
under  the  gospel.  They  assumed  to  his  mind  the  rela- 
tion of  contraries,  mutually  excluding  each  other.  It 
was  not  that  this  contrariety  pertained  to  their  rela- 
tions in  general,  but  only  to  them  considered  as  means 
of  salvation.  It  was  in  this  sense  that  the  gospel 
excluded  the  law;  and  it  was  from  this  point  of  re- 
garding the  subject  that  Paul  resisted  all  resort  to 
the  law  and  all  attempts  to  attain  salvation  by  observ- 
ance of  it,  even  declaring,  in  his  polemic  against  the 
Galatian  Judaizers,  that  if  they  were  circumcised  they 
thereby  forfeited  all  relation  to  Christ  (Gal.  v.  2). 
It  was  not  because  circumcision  was  in  itself  so  con- 
trary to  Christianity  that  the  apostle  said  this,  but 
because  in  receiving  this  initiatory  rite  the  Gentile 
convert  espoused  the  legal  system  and  based  his 
hope  of  salvation  upon  obedience  to  it  instead  of 
placing  it  upon  Christ  alone.  Being  circumcised,  he 
is  bound  to  keep  the  whole  law,  and  if  he  fails  to  do 
this  (as  he  certainly  will),  his  ground  of  hope  in  the 
law  crumbles  away,  and  he  remains  unforgiven  and 
subject  to  condemnation.  As  there  are  not  two  ways 
of  salvation,  one  by  the  law  and  one  by  the  gospel,  so 
are  there  not  two  conditions  of  salvation,  circumcision 
and  faith.  Since  the  way  of  meritorious  salvation  is 
shut,  and  that  by  grace  alone  remains  open,  the  con- 
ditions which  the  method  of  legal  obedience  might 
impose  are  excluded  ;  that  which  the  method  of  grace 
requires  —  namely,  faith  —  alone  remains. 
But  after  the  fullest  possible  analysis  has  been 


SHAPING  FORCES  OF  PAUL'S  TEACHING        73 

made  of  the  human  conditions  and  influences  which 
determined  the  forms  and  shaped  the  development  of 
Paul's  thought,  his  career  remains  inexplicable  with- 
out assigning  chief  importance  to  that  divine  grace 
and  providential  leadership  to  which  he  himself  ever 
ascribes  his  achievements  in  the  work  of  the  gospel. 
The  human  factors  of  his  mission  and  work  lie  open 
to  view,  and  deserve  the  most  careful  study.  It  is 
these  which  make  his  life  a  truly  natural  one  far  re- 
moved from  that  unearthly  and  inscrutable  char- 
acter with  which  it  has  been  sometimes  invested. 
His  temperament,  education,  religious  experience 
as  a  Pharisee,  and  peculiar  conversion  have  an 
obvious  and  easily  traceable  effect  upon  his  work 
and  his  theology.  The  grace  that  made  him  what 
he  was  did  not  work  its  results  apart  from  these 
human  conditions,  but  in  and  through  them.  While 
his  gospel  was  divine  in  its  origin  and  came  to  him 
by  revelation,  it  was  also  subject  to  reflection  and 
development  in  its  definition  and  application.  The 
core  of  this  gospel  was  the  truth  of  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus.  This  was  matter  of  revelation  in  the  ex- 
perience of  his  conversion ;  but  this  fact  in  no  way 
involves  the  idea  that  his  whole  scheme  of  teaching 
was  revealed  to  him  ready-made.  This  was  indeed 
the  germ-truth  out  of  which  his  view  of  the  law  and 
of  the  relations  of  the  Old  and  New  Covenants  was 
developed.  But  the  working-out  of  the  bearings  and 
applications  of  that  new  truth  must  have  cost  the 
apostle  long  and  patient  reflection.  Moreover,  the 


74  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

circumstances  of  his  churches  and  the  exigencies  of 
the  time  determined  the  ways  in  which  he  must,  in  the 
various  cases,  have  reasoned  out  and  applied  his  doc- 
trines of  grace  and  faith.  It  remains  to  us  to  pursue 
our  studies  upon  the  development  of  these  doctrines 
in  accord  with  the  personal  and  historic  conditions 
affecting  them,  while  we  recognize  the  divinely  re- 
vealed truth  by  which  Paul  was  set  upon  his  great 
career,  and  the  providence  and  grace  by  which  he  was 
continually  enabled  to  win  such  great  conquests  for 
truth  and  righteousness. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  SOURCES  OP  PAULINE  DOCTRINE 

IT  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  this  volume  to 
discuss  the  critical  questions  connected  with  the 
genuineness  of  the  thirteen  epistles  which  are  com- 
monly attributed  to  Paul.  It  seems  desirable,  how- 
ever, to  present  a  brief  r£sum£  of  the  status  and 
results  of  criticism  in  this  branch  of  biblical  study. 
It  is  particularly  important,  for  the  purposes  of  our 
investigation,  to  appreciate  the  sources  of  Paul's 
teaching  in  their  individuality,  and  to  group  them 
according  to  their  leading  characteristics. 

We  have  in  the  first  place,  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  a 
number  of  reports  of  Paul's  discourses.  In  my  judg- 
ment, criticism  has  not  shaken  the  long-cherished 
opinion  that  the  author  of  the  Acts  was  Luke,  who 
was  a  member  of  the  apostle's  company  during  a 
portion  of  his  missionary  activity.  If  this  be  correct, 
the  writer  must  have  been  a  frequent  listener  to  the 
apostle's  preaching,  and  would  be  able  to  report  his 
discourses  with  substantial  accuracy.  Whatever  diffi- 
culties, then,  may  attend  the  interpretation  of  details 
or  the  question  of  the  sources  and  preservation  of  the 


76  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

reports,  there  is  no  adequate  reason  to  question  the 
narratives  of  Acts  in  their  testimony  to  the  main 
truths  which  Paul  emphasized  in  his  missionary 
preaching.  From  these  we  learn  that  his  chief  asser- 
tion in  speaking  to  the  Jews  was  that  of  the  Messiah- 
ship  of  Jesus  (Acts  ix.  20,  22 ;  xvii.  3),  and  that  in 
support  of  this  truth  he  appealed  chiefly  to  Christ's 
fulfilment  of  prophecy  and  to  the  fact  of  his  resur- 
rection (xvii.  2 ;  xiii.  30).  In  addressing  Gentile 
audiences  he  first  sought  some  point  of  contact  with 
their  own  religious  ideas,  by  appeal  to  evidences  of 
God's  providence  and  goodness  (xiv.  15-17  ;  xvii.  22- 
31),  and  then  led  their  minds  onward  to  truths  spe- 
cifically Christian.  On  more  than  one  occasion,  when 
personally  accused  of  sacrilege  or  sedition,  he  narrated 
the  story  of  his  conversion  and  divine  call  to  his 
work,  in  justification  of  his  course  (Acts  xxii.  3  sq. ; 
xxvi.  2  «^.). 

The  Pauline  epistles  fall  chronologically  into  four 
groups,  and  to  each  of  these  groups  belong  distinguish- 
ing characteristics.  They  may  be  classified  as  follows  : 
(1)  The  Missionary  Epistles,1  —  1  and  2  Thessalonians, 
written  at  Corinth  (cf.  1  Thess.  i.  1  with  Acts  xviii. 
5-11),  in  the  year  A.  D.  52  or  53.  (2)  The  Great 
Doctrinal  Epistles, —  Galatians,  written  during  Paul's 
three  years'  residence  at  Ephesus  (Acts  xx.  31), 

1  I  assign  to  them  this  title  because  they  sustain,  both  in  point 
of  time  and  of  substance,  a  close  relation  to  the  apostle's  mission- 
ary preaching.  They  are  commonly  referred  to  as  Paul's  Earlier 
Epistles. 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  77 

probably  in  A.  D.  55  or  56 ;  1  and  2  Corinthians,  written 
at  Ephesus  and  in  Macedonia  respectively,  A.  D.  58 ; 
and  Romans,  written  at  Corinth  during  the  winter  of 
58-59.  (3)  The  Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment,  —  Co- 
lossians,  Philemon,  Ephesians,  and  Philippians.  These 
letters  are  generally  believed  to  have  been  composed, 
in  the  order  named,  while  the  apostle  was  a  prisoner 
at  Rome  during  the  years  61-63  (cf.  Acts  xxviii.). 
Many  critics,  however,  assign  the  first  three  of  this 
group  to  the  imprisonment  at  Caesarea  (Acts  xxiii., 
xxiv.)  and  the  last  only  to  that  at  Rome  (so  Meyer, 
Reuss,  Weiss).  (4)  The  Pastoral  Epistles,  —  1  and  2 
Timothy  and  Titus,  commonly  supposed  to  have  been 
written  after  Paul  had  been  released  from  the  impris- 
onment at  Rome,  during  which  he  had  written  the 
third  group  of  letters.  The  supposition  is  that  Paul 
was  acquitted  after  his  trial  in  A.  D.  63,  and  during  a 
period  of  freedom  wrote  1  Timothy  and  Titus.  Then, 
after  several  years  of  missionary  labor,  during  which 
he  perhaps  visited  Spain  (see  Rom.  xv.  24),  he  was 
imprisoned  a  second  time,  and  wrote  during  this  im- 
prisonment and  shortly  before  his  execution  the 
second  letter  to  Timothy,  probably  about  A.  D.  67  or 
68. 

The  genuineness  of  each  of  these  groups,  except  the 
second,  has  been  denied  by  the  Tubingen  criticism. 
Recent  critics,  who  follow  in  general  the  methods  and 
principles  of  Baur,  differ  widely  in  their  opinions  re- 
garding the  epistles  of  the  first,  third,  and  fourth 
groups.  The  genuineness  of  the  fourth  is  most  con- 


78  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

fidently  and  plausibly  denied.  The  tendency  of  this 
criticism,  however,  is  toward  a  recognition,  more  or 
less  qualified,  of  the  first  and  third  groups  as  Pauline. 
The  genuineness  of  1  Thessalonians,  Philemon,  and 
Philippians  is  now  widely  admitted  by  disciples  of  the 
Tubingen  school  (for  example,  Schenkel,  Reuss,  Pflei- 
derer).  The  movement  of  criticism  has  been  toward 
the  recognition  of  the  genuineness  of  2  Thessalonians. 
De  Wette,  for  example,  retracted  his  unfavorable  opin- 
ion regarding  this  epistle.  Pfleiderer  regards  it 
(apart  from  the  apocalyptic  portion,  ii.  1-12)  as  a 
reproduction,  by  another  hand,  of  the  First  Epistle, 
and  so  as  Pauline  in  its  main  content,  though  spu- 
rious in  authorship.  Reuss  maintains  its  genuineness 
throughout. 

The  genuineness  of  Colossians  and  Ephesians,  to- 
gether with  the  problem  of  their  relation,  continues 
to  be  much  disputed.  On  this  latter  point  the  most 
diverse  views  have  been  entertained.  Now,  Colossians 
has  been  made  a  reproduction  of  Ephesians  (Mayer- 
hoff),  and  again  the  converse  has  been  supposed  (De 
Wette).  Others  rejected  both  together  (Baur  and 
Schwegler).  Later  the  view  became  current  that 
Colossians  was  based  upon  a  genuine  Pauline  letter 
which  the  writer  of  the  spurious  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians had  worked  over  into  its  present  form  by  adding 
his  own  speculations  (Holtzmann,  Hausrath,  Immer, 
von  Soden).  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  even  with  the 
results  of  what  is  called  the  negative  or  destructive 
criticism  of  the  Pauline  epistles,  as  represented,  for 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  79 

example,  by  Pfleiderer,  we  have  as  sources  of  Paul's 
teaching  not  only  the  four  undisputed  letters,  but  also 
1  Thessalonians  and  Philippians,  and  as  based  upon 
Pauline  teaching  and  representing  it  with  more  or  less 
variation,  2  Thessalonians,  Colossians,  and  Ephesians. 
The  criticism  most  unfavorable  to  traditional  opinion 
—  at  least  such  as  has  won  any  general  acceptance  — 
rules  out  from  the  sources  only  the  Pastoral  Epistles 
and  certain  elements  in  2  Thessalonians,  Colossians, 
and  Ephesians.1 

These  examples  of  the  varying  results  of  a  current 
type  of  criticism  have  been  adduced  partly  to  show 
how  discordant  are  its  conclusions.  This  fact  alone 
throws  just  suspicion  upon  the  validity  of  its  prem- 
ises, even  apart  from  the  consideration  of  counter- 
vailing arguments.  But  the  reasons  by  which  the 
negative  views  are  supported  are  in  many  points 
notably  deficient.  The  objection  to  2  Thessalonians 
is,  that  the  apocalyptic  passage  contradicts  the  First 
Epistle,  which  represents  the  parousia  as  imminent. 
It  is  also  said  that  the  writer  betrays  an  obvious  anx- 
iety to  have  his  epistle  regarded  as  Pauline  (iii.  17), 
and  reveals  himself  through  his  guise  by  saying  that 
the  autograph  salutation  is  the  mark  of  genuineness 

1  The  arguments  by  which  Bruno  Bauer  sought  to  disprove 
the  genuineness  of  the  letters  of  the  second  group  have  been  re- 
vived and  further  elaborated  by  some  recent  critics,  especially  by 
Loman  and  Steck.  A  clear  summary  and  critique  of  their  opin- 
ions may  be  found  in  Lipsius'  "  Introduction  to  Galatians,"  in  the 
Handkommentar  (Freiburg,  1891)  ;  also  in  Pfleiderer's  Der  Paul- 
inismus,  2  Aufl.,  p.  33  sq. 


80  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

in  every  epistle,  whereas  Paul  had,  at  most,  written 
but  one  letter  before  this.  To  these  points  it  may 
properly  be  replied  that  while  Paul  clearly  expressed 
the  expectation  in  the  First  Epistle  that  the  advent 
would  occur  during  his  lifetime,  he  nowhere  presumed 
to  fix  its  time  or  to  say  that  it  was  in  the  immedi- 
ate future.  He  was  in  middle  life  at  the  time  of 
writing,  and  beyond  question  expected  the  develop- 
ments described  in  2  Thess.  ii.,  which  were  to  pre- 
cede the  advent,  to  occur  within  his  lifetime.  He 
declared  that  the  "mystery  of  lawlessness"  was  al- 
ready working;  it  needed  but  to  come  to  its  culmi- 
nation in  order  to  usher  in  the  parousia.  Objections 
connected  with  this  passage  derive  their  force  largely 
from  the  assumption  that  by  the  "  man  of  sin  "  some 
Roman  Emperor  is  meant,  —  a  supposition  which  is 
wholly  improbable.  Regarding  the  second  point  men- 
tioned, it  may  be  said  that  we  do  not  know  that  Paul 
had  written  but  one  letter  (1  Thessalonians)  at  the 
time  when  he  is  supposed  to  have  written  2  Thessalo- 
nians,1 and,  further,  that  the  expression,  "  Which  is  the 
token  in  every  epistle,"  may  look  forward  to  the  future, 
as  well  as  backward  to  the  past.  The  same  authentica- 
tion is  found  at  the  close  of  1  Corinthians  and  Colos- 
sians,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  salutation  in  all  the 
epistles  was  added  with  Paul's  own  hand.  Moreover, 
there  would  be  special  reason  for  this  authentication 
in  this  case,  because  a  letter  had  been  circulated  at 

1  Vide  Jowett,  "  On  the  Probability  that  many  of  Saint  Paul's 
Epistles  have  been  lost,"  in  his  St.  Paul's  Epistles. 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  81 

Thessalonica  which  falsely  purported  to  be  Paul's  (see 
2  Thess.  ii.  2).  It  has  been  generally  conceded  that 
the  second  letter  bears  unmistakable  marks  of  the 
Pauline  style,  —  evidences  so  clear  as  to  lead  to  the 
opinion  that  it  was  an  imitation  of  the  First  Epistle, 
with  the  apocalypse  (ii.  1-12)  added.  Ewald  has 
justly  observed  that  "  none  of  the  writings  of  the  New 
Testament  have  so  much  of  the  living  freshness  of  the 
first  age  of  the  gospel,  or  present  so  vivid  a  picture  of 
the  hopes  of  the  first  believers,  as  the  Epistles  to  the 
Thessalonians."  It  will  require  more  cogent  argu- 
ments than  have  been  presented,  to  shake  the  opinion, 
universal  in  ancient  and  modern  times  until  the  pres- 
ent century,  that  both  these  epistles  are  Pauline. 

The  objections  which  have  been  urged  against  the 
Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment,  especially  Ephesians, 
are,  in  general,  that  they  lack  the  vigor  and  power 
of  Paul's  genuine  letters,  and  that  they  reflect  in  lan- 
guage and  idea  the  gnostic  speculations  of  the  post- 
apostolic  age.  References  are  made  to  the  numerous 
hapaxlegomena,  to  a  supposed  vagueness  of  thought  and 
redundancy  of  style,  and  to  the  forms  of  later  her- 
esy which  are  antagonized  (especially  in  Colossians), 
as  proofs  of  the  non-Pauline  authorship ;  but  these 
are  largely  matters  of  taste  and  subjective  opinion. 
There  is  little  agreement  among  critics  who,  in  gen- 
eral, are  unfavorable  to  the  genuineness  of  these  let- 
ters. It  is  certain  that  Ephesians  and  Colossians 
have  some  marked  peculiarities.  The  problem  is, 
whether  they  can  be  adequately  explained  by  the 

6 


82  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

lapse  of  years,  change  of  conditions,  and  the  develop- 
ment of  the  apostle's  own  thought  in  its  application 
to  the  subjects  treated  of  in  this  group,  especially  the 
person  of  Christ  and  his  relation  to  his  kingdom. 
The  question  appeals  chiefly  to  subjective  tests.  The 
difficulties  will  be  variously  estimated  by  different 
minds.  Theological  and  historical  presuppositions 
will  also  inevitably  influence  the  judgment  upon  such 
points.  I  deem  it  safe  to  affirm  that  adverse  criti- 
cism has  not  disproved  the  genuineness  of  any  one  of 
this  group  of  letters.  Philippians  is  now  generally 
admitted  by  this  criticism  to  be  unconditionally  genu- 
ine, while  opinion  wavers  upon  the  question  whether 
Colossians  is  not  conditionally  so.  If  this  view  is 
taken,  it  cannot  then  be  denied  that  Ephesians,  which 
so  nearly  resembles  Colossians,  is  in  substance  Pauline 
in  idea,  if  not  the  direct  product  of  the  apostle's  own 
mind. 

The  burden  of  proof  clearly  lies  upon  the  objectors. 
The  epistles  claim  to  be  Pauline;  tradition  is  abun- 
dant and  distinct  in  its  testimony  to  the  validity  of 
this  claim;  a  general  Pauline  character  is  admitted 
by  all  to  belong  to  them.  Can  the  peculiarities  be 
explained  ?  I  believe  that  they  can.  The  objections 
proceed  too  much  upon  an  assumption  of  the  form  and 
ideas  of  the  doctrinal  epistles  as  furnishing  the  stand- 
ard and  measure  of  the  apostle's  thought.  It  appears 
to  me  unwarranted,  in  the  case  of  a  writer  of  such 
vigor  and  independence  as  Paul,  to  make  one  group 
of  his  letters  a  fixed  type  to  which  all  other  alleged 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  83 

epistles  of  his  must  closely  conform.  In  respect  to 
the  validity  of  the  Tubingen  criticism  of  these  letters, 
I  therefore  concur  in  the  words  of  Meyer :  — 

"The  grounds  on  which  the  hypothesis  is  based  are 
far  from  adequate  in  the  case  of  a  letter-writer  who 
stands  so  high  and  great  in  many-sided  wealth,  both  of 
thought  and  diction,  and  in  its  free  handling,  as  Paul, 
and  who,  according  to  the  diversity  of  the  given  circum- 
stances, and  of  his  own  tone  of  feeling,  was  capable  of, 
and  had  mastery  over,  so  ample  and  manifold  variety  in 
the  presentation  of  his  ideas  and  the  structure  of  his 
sentences."  1 

The  genuineness  of  the  Pastoral  Epistles  has  been 
for  obvious  reasons  most  widely  doubted.  One  of 
them  —  2  Timothy  —  purports  to  have  been  written 
while  the  apostle  was  a  prisoner.  1  Timothy  appears 
to  have  been  written  from  Macedonia  for  the  purpose 
of  guiding  Timothy  in  his  work  at  Ephesus.  The 
letter  to  Titus  represents  this  apostolic  assistant  as  in 
Crete,  and  has  closest  affinities  to  the  First  Epistle 
to  Timothy.  The  order  would  seem  to  be :  1  Timo- 
thy, Titus,  2  Timothy. 

The  allusions  which  these  epistles  contain  have  led 
most  critics  to  the  opinion  that  they  cannot  be  as- 
signed to  any  period  of  Paul's  life  with  which  the 
New  Testament  makes  us  familiar.  Until  recent 
times,  the  universal  opinion  was,  as  we  have  already 
indicated,  that  the  apostle  had  been  acquitted  and  re- 

1  Commentary  on  Colossians,  Introduction,  Am.  ed.  p.  204. 


84  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

leased  from  the  imprisonment  during  which  Colos- 
sians,  Ephesians,  Philemon,  and  Philippians  were 
written,  and  after  a  period  of  freedom,  was  again 
imprisoned  at  Rome.  During  the  period  of  release 
1  Timothy  and  Titus  were  written,  and  after  his  im- 
prisonment a  second  time  the  second  letter  to  Timo- 
thy was  composed;  but  this  supposition  is  based 
upon  references  and  allusions  in  the  letters  them- 
selves, and  their  genuineness  in  turn  rests  upon  the 
supposition  in  question.  It  is  thus  a  case  of  reason- 
ing in  a  circle. 

Since  the  investigation  of  the  question  could  not 
make  progress  upon  the  traditional  view,  the  problem 
became  one  of  internal  evidence  chiefly.  Neither  the 
genuineness  nor  the  spuriousness  of  the  epistles  can 
be  proven  by  historical  testimony,  since  the  closing 
years  of  Paul's  life  are  lost  in  a  maze  of  uncertain  tra- 
ditions. The  question  then  is,  whether  the  letters  are 
Pauline  in  style  and  thought,  and  may  be  fairly  pre- 
sumed to  emanate  from  Paul,  to  whom  they  claim  to 
belong,  and  to  whom  uniform  church  tradition  ascribes 
them. 

The  objections  which,  since  Schleiermacher,  have 
been  urged  against  their  genuineness  are  chiefly,  that 
the  errors  which  they  combat  belong  to  the  post-apos- 
tolic age,  and  that  the  church-order  which  they  reflect 
is  of  a  more  elaborate  character  than  we  find  in  the 
period  to  which  they  have  commonly  been  referred. 
It  is  maintained,  on  the  contrary,  that  no  gnostic 
system  of  the  second  century  with  which  we  are 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  85 

acquainted,  corresponds  to  the  allusions  made  to  doc- 
trinal errors  in  these  epistles,  and  that  the  church- 
organization  is  the  same  as  that  which  we  meet  else- 
where in  Paul's  writings ;  it  is  still  the  order  of 
presbyter-bishops  and  deacons,  with  nothing  of  the 
hierarchical  quality  which  we  find  in  the  second  cen- 
tury. It  is  beyond  my  present  purpose  to  discuss  this 
vexed  question.  In  the  nature  of  the  case  it  is  one 
of  peculiar  difficulty,  since  indications  and  allusions 
such  as  constitute  the  evidence  are  liable  to  very 
different  estimation  and  interpretation.  It  is  ad- 
mitted by  candid  critics  who  maintain  their  genu- 
ineness that  these  epistles  present  considerable 
peculiarities  both  in  diction  and  matter ;  but  it  is 
maintained  that  these  are  adequately  explained  by 
their  peculiar  purposes,  themes,  and  circumstances. 
It  is  claimed  that  the  earlier  epistles  ought  not  to 
be  made  an  absolute  standard  of  method,  style,  and 
matter  for  a  writer  of  such  wealth  and  freedom  of 
thought  and  expression  as  Paul. 

It  is  obvious  that  the  burden  of  proof  lies  upon  the 
opponents  of  the  Pauline  authorship  of  these  epistles. 
It  is  also  to  be  noticed  that  there  have  not  been  want- 
ing important  variations  of  opinion  among  critics 
who,  in  general,  were  unfavorable  to  their  genuine- 
ness. Some  have  found  genuine  passages  in  all  three  ; 
more  freely  has  a  genuine  nucleus  for  2  Timothy  been 
allowed,  while  others  have  supposed  the  letters  to  be 
based  upon  notes  and  recollections  of  the  apostle's 
instructions.  Those  who  reject  the  Pauline  author- 


86  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ship  commonly  admit  a  large  Pauline  element,  and 
would  treat  the  subject-matter  of  the  epistles  as  fur- 
nishing examples  of  a  later  developed  and  applied 
Paulinism  which  might  be  made  a  supplement  or 
appendix  to  Pauline  theology  proper. 

There  is  no  present  indication  of  harmony  of  opin- 
ion upon  this  question.  Scholars  of  the  greatest 
learning  and  candor  remain  divided,  and  the  basis 
of  division  seems  to  be  certain  theological  and  his- 
toric views  regarding  the  tendencies  of  thought  in  the 
Apostolic  age,  and  the  relation  of  the  New  Testament 
literature  to  them.  Among  those  who  reject  the 
Pauline  authorship  are  Hilgenfeld,  Holtzmann,  Haus- 
rath,  Pfleiderer,  and  Weizsacker;  among  those  who 
defend  it,  Wieseler,  Wiesinger,  Huther,  Van  Oos- 
terzee,  and  Weiss.  I  am  far  from  convinced  by  the 
arguments  alleged  against  these  epistles  ;  but  the  limi- 
tations of  the  evidence  and  the  peculiarities  which  they 
present  render  impossible  to  an  impartial  judgment 
the  same  degree  of  confidence  respecting  this  group  of 
letters  which  may  be  felt  regarding  the  others. 

It  is  easy  to  form  an  exaggerated  impression  of  the 
bearing  upon  biblical  theology  of  doubts  regarding 
the  genuineness  of  the  epistles  which  are  in  dispute, 
if  such  doubts  are  considered  to  be  well-grounded. 
The  Thessalonian  and  Pastoral  Epistles  are  so  far 
practical  and  hortatory  in  character  that  their  rejec- 
tion as  sources  of  Paulinism  affects  the  representation 
of  the  apostle's  teaching  only  in  minor  details.  The 
question  is  more  important  if  the  method  of  tracing 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  87 

the  specific  peculiarities  of  each  stage  of  the  apostle's 
teaching  is  chosen.  Where,  however,  the  effort  is  to 
trace  the  great  outlines  of  the  apostle's  thought,  and 
to  grasp  his  type  of  Christian  teaching  as  a  whole,  — 
the  end  which  I  have  set  before  me  in  these  pages,  — 
the  chief  sources  are,  in  any  case,  the  four  great 
undisputed  epistles  in  which  men  of  all  views  must 
find  common  ground. 

Greater  importance  for  biblical  theology  attaches 
to  Colossians  and  Ephesians  ;  and  yet  the  great  themes 
of  the  apostle's  teaching  would  not  be  so  much  affected 
by  their  omission  as  might  at  first  thought  seem  to 
be  the  case.  They  deal  chiefly  with  Christ's  exaltation 
and  kingship  over  the  Church  and  the  world.  These 
themes  are  treated  in  an  elevated  and  striking  style, 
and  the  thought  moves  in  the  region  of  the  mysterious 
and  transcendent.  Adverse  critics  do  not  claim  that 
the  thoughts  are  contrary  to  Paul's.  They  represent 
in  any  event  a  phase  of  Pauline  doctrine,  even  if  cast 
into  these  forms  by  a  later  writer.  But  in  case  these 
two  epistles  were  not  used  as  sources,  it  would  be 
certain  applications  of  Pauline  ideas  that  would  be 
taken  from  us  rather  than  the  substance  of  those 
ideas  themselves,  especially  so  long  as  Philippians  is 
held  to  be  genuine. 

I  am  far  from  admitting  that  the  loss  of  these  epis- 
tles as  sources  would  not  be  a  serious  curtailment  of 
the  material  which  I  believe  we  may  confidently  use ; 
but  it  would  be  a  loss  in  richness  and  fulness  rather 
than  of  any  fundamental  or  formative  idea.  The 


88  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

elements  of  Paul's  doctrine  can  be  fully  defined  with- 
'out  recourse  to  these  letters;  but  when  this  has  been 
done,  we  turn  to  Colossians  and  Ephesians  for  match- 
less examples  of  his  high  conception  and  eloquent 
description  of  the  dominion  of  Christ  amid  the  powers 
of  the  world,  and  for  vivid  pictures  of  the  scope  of  his 
redeeming  work. 

The  first  group  of  letters  (1  and  2  Thessalonians) 
possess  a  special  interest  arising  from  their  close 
connection  with  the  apostle's  missionary  preaching. 
Written  amid  the  labors  of  establishing  the  church  at 
Corinth  and  with  the  memory  of  his  teaching  in  the 
Thessalonian  synagogue  fresh  in  mind  (Acts  xvii.  1-4), 
they  bring  us  into  close  contact  with  Paul's  practical 
religious  teaching,  and  enable  us  to  feel  the  touch  of 
his  warm  personal  affection  for  the  converts  whom 
he  had  won  and  instructed.  They  contain  no  doc- 
trinal teaching,  however,  in  the  strict  sense,  except 
certain  references  to  the  second  advent.  Paul  had 
comforted  them  in  his  personal  teaching  with  the 
hope  of  Christ's  return,  and  in  the  First  Epistle  ex- 
horts them  to  faith  and  patience  amid  their  afflictions 
and  persecutions,  in  view  of  this  expectation.  He  had, 
however,  sought  to  guard  them  against  a  fanatical 
spirit  which  should  lead  them  to  relinquish  their 
employments  on  account  of  the  anticipation  of  Christ's 
speedy  return  (iv.  11 ;  v.  1).  This  result  followed 
notwithstanding,  and  occasioned  the  writing  of  the 
Second  Epistle,  in  which  he  seeks  to  draw  away  their 
minds,  in  a  measure,  from  the  expectation  of  the 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  89 

parousia  as  immediately  imminent,  and  to  fix  them 
upon  certain  events  which  are  to  be  previously  ex- 
pected, —  a  development  of  opposition  to  the  gospel, 
culminating  in  claims  to  divine  honors  on  the  part  of  a 
certain  false  Messiah,  which  was  to  occur  in  the  sphere 
of  Judaism.  This  apostasy  must  first  reach  its  height 
of  power  and  defiance  before  the  advent  will  occur 
(2  Thess.  ii.  3).  By  this  means  the  apostle  diverts 
their  attention  to  other  thoughts,  and  urges  them  to 
resume  and  pursue  their  customary  occupations  (iii.  10- 
12).  It  may  be  added  that  their  excitement  was  no 
doubt  due  in  large  part  to  the  influence  of  a  letter 
which  purported  to  have  come  from  him  (2  Thess.  ii.  2), 
and  which,  contrary  to  his  actual  teaching,  had  repre- 
sented him  as  saying  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  was 
immediately  at  hand  (evea-rrjicev')  ;  that  is,  on  the  very 
point  of  dawning  (ii.  2). 

The  apostle  had  touched  upon  one  other  topic  con- 
nected with  the  parousia-expectation.  The  Thessa- 
lonians  had  been  troubled  by  the  thought  that  those 
of  their  number  who  had  died  would  fail  to  participate 
in  the  glory  which  would  be  revealed  at  the  advent, 
and  in  which  those  who  lived  until  that  event  should 
share  (1  Thess.  iv.  13  sq.~).  Paul  assures  them  that 
those  who  survive  the  advent  will  have  no  advantage 
over  those  who  shall  have  died  before  its  occurrence, 
but  that  they  will  be  raised  from  the  dead  before  the 
living  shall  enter  into  the  glory  of  Christ,  and  thus 
those  who  are  alive  "  shall  in  no  wise  precede  them 
that  are  fallen  asleep  "  (iv.  15). 


90  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

This  brief  rtsumt  of  the  teaching  of  these  letters, 
so  far  as  they  are  doctrinal,  is  here  given  because  the 
thoughts  presented  are  not  found  elsewhere,  and  con- 
stitute a  phase  of  the  apostle's  earlier  teaching.  The 
advent  continues  to  be  confidently  expected  by  the 
apostle  to  occur  during  his  lifetime,  as  is  shown  by 
the  later  letters  (1  Cor.  i.  7 ;  xv.  23 ;  xvi.  22 ;  Rom. 
xiii.  12 ;  Phil.  iv.  5)  ;  but  both  the  event  itself  and  its 
attendant  circumstances  recede  into  the  background 
of  his  thought,  and  are  only  incidentally  emphasized. 
The  engrossing  cares  of  his  ministry,  and  especially 
the  conflict  with  various  forms  of  error  which  threat- 
ened to  pervert  the  pure  doctrines  of  grace,  absorbed 
the  apostle's  attention,  and  furnished  the  occasion  for 
those  definitions  of  his  "  gospel "  (Gal.  i.  11 ;  Rom.  ii. 
16)  which  we  find  in  Galatians  and  Romans ;  while 
the  disorders  and  immoralities  in  the  Corinthian 
Church  occasioned  the  more  practical  application  of 
its  principles  to  the  needs  of  that  community.  The 
way  is  thus  paved  for  the  writing  of  the  second  group 
of  letters,  in  which  must  always  be  found  the  clearest 
outlines  and  the  central  principles  of  Paul's  teaching. 
Since  our  subsequent  discussions  will  be  chiefly  occu- 
pied with  the  subject-matter  of  these  epistles,  we  need 
in  this  connection  only  to  remark  that  their  key- 
thought  is  that  salvation  is  of  divine  grace  alone,  as 
opposed  to  human  merit,  and  is  received  by  humble 
acceptance,  not  achieved  by  human  willing  or  striving. 
This  principle  is,  as  we  have  sought  to  show,  logically 
involved  in  the  experience  of  Paul's  conversion,  and 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  91 

must  have  unfolded  itself  to  him  as  he  reflected  upon 
his  futile  strivings  after  peace  by  deeds  of  legal  obe- 
dience. He  had  himself  experienced,  in  the  revela- 
tion of  Christ  to  him,  the  truth  of  this  way  of  grace 
and  faith.  The  formative  principle  of  his  theology 
must  have  been  present  to  his  mind  from  that  expe- 
rience onward ;  but  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  for 
a  long  time  distinctly  developed  as  a  doctrine  in  his 
preaching.  In  his  earlier  teaching,  so  far  as  it  is  pre- 
served to  us  in  the  Acts  and  in  the  Thessalonian 
Epistles,  he  does  not  enter  into  an  exposition  of  this 
characteristic  principle.  The  resurrection  and  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus  and  the  hope  of  his  speedy  return 
formed  the  staple  of  his  teaching,  until  the  growth 
of  error  in  the  churches  which  he  had  founded  gave 
him  occasion  to  work  out  a  defence  of  his  gospel  in 
the  sphere  of  its  principles.  This  he  has  done  in  Gala- 
tians  and  Romans,  connecting  his  exposition  in  the 
former  with  his  conversion  and  call  to  his  mission, 
while  in  the  latter  he  has  more  fully  and  syste- 
matically developed  and  applied  the  principles  of 
grace  and  faith,  and  has  traced  them  back  into  the 
Old  Testament.  The  treatment  of  practical  and  deli- 
cate questions  of  conduct  in  the  Corinthian  Epistles 
invests  them  with  special  interest  as  manuals  of  Paul- 
ine ethics.  They  present  a  greater  variety  of  sub- 
ject than  the  other  letters,  many  of  which  furnish 
the  apostle  his  most  inspiring  themes  and  call  forth 
some  of  his  most  striking  expositions  of  Christian 
truth.  In  my  judgment  no  epistle  contains  so  many 


92  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

passages  of  lofty  eloquence  as  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians. 

The  peculiarities  of  the  third  group  of  epistles  have 
been  briefly  pointed  out.  With  the  exception  of  Phile- 
mon, which  is  a  personal  letter  and  has  no  doctrinal 
content,  they  are  chiefly  Christological  in  character, 
and  have  their  main  use  for  biblical  theology  in 
exhibiting  the  apostle's  exalted  conception  of  Christ's 
person  and  work.  This  development  of  thought  was 
called  out  by  special  forms  of  error  which  threatened 
the  doctrines  of  the  incarnation  of  Christ  and  of  re- 
demption by  him.  The  tone  and  language  are  adapted 
to  these  peculiar  conditions.  Many  terms  which  do 
not  occur  elsewhere  are  employed  in  dealing  with  the 
errors  under  review.  The  errorists  were  in  the 
churches,  and  their  influence  must  be  counteracted. 
Colossians  is  the  most  controversial  of  the  three 
letters  in  question,  and  from  it  can  be  most  clearly 
ascertained  the  outlines  of  the  heresy  against  which 
Paul  is  contending.  It  appears  to  have  been  a  species 
of  Jewish  eclecticism,  and  to  have  had  in  it  some  of 
the  germs  of  later  Gnosticism.  It  contained  specu- 
lations concerning  angels  (Col.  ii.  18),  and  laid  stress 
upon  ascetic  rigors  and  observance  of  days  (ii.  16-23). 
It  clearly  assigned  to  Christ  an  inferior  position,  plac- 
ing him,  perhaps,  in  a  series  of  supernatural  beings 
who  together  constituted,  in  this  philosophy,  the  full 
revelation  of  God.  Paul  warns  against  these  vain 
and  foolish  speculations,  and  asserts  that  Christ  him- 
self is  the  fulness  of  divine  revelation,  and  that  in  him 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  93 

alone  can  the  believer  find  the  complete  truth  and  life 
which  he  needs  (h.  8-10). 

These  forms  of  error  did  not,  like  Jewish  legalism, 
threaten  the  evangelical  principle  of  faith,  but  they 
obscured  the  object  of  faith  by  departing  from  the 
truth  of  the  sole  sufficiency  of  Christ  as  the  revealer 
of  God.  The  notion  of  intermediate  agencies  of  reve- 
lation removed  God  into  a  dim  region  of  mystery,  and 
made  communion  with  him  a  vague  and  uncertain 
experience.  This  mysterious  intercourse  with  the 
heavenly  world  was  thought  to  be  promoted  by  re- 
nouncing contact  with  present  enjoyments  and  by 
self-imposed  observances  of  days  and  seasons.  In 
this  way,  from  another  point  of  departure,  these  theo- 
sophic  speculations  introduced  again  the  legal  con- 
ception of  salvation ;  and  thus  Paul's  defence  of  the 
pre-eminence  of  Christ  and  his  rebuke  of  this  ascetic 
mysticism  may  be  still  considered  as  a  maintenance, 
in  a  new  sphere,  of  the  principles  of  salvation  by 
grace  alone  and  upon  condition  of  faith,  which  consti- 
tute the  fundamental  peculiarity  of  his  theology. 

The  Pastoral  Epistles  were  addressed  to  trusted 
disciples  of  the  apostle,  and  consequently  have  no 
occasion  to  deal  with  definitions  or  defences  of  the 
gospel.  They  urge  upon  the  Christian  teachers  to 
whom  they  are  addressed  faithful  adherence  to  "  sound 
doctrine  "  and  the  avoidance  of  certain  current  specu- 
lations which  only  foster  pride  and  folly.  No  refu- 
tation of  these  doctrinal  tendencies  is  undertaken; 
Timothy  and  Titus  are  counselled  wholly  to  avoid 


94  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

them  as  unprofitable  and  presumptuous.  They  are 
characterized  as  "  a  different  doctrine  "  (1  Tim.  i.  3) 
from  the  apostle's  own,  and  as  dealing  with  Jewish 
fables,  endless  genealogies,  and  strivings  about  the 
law  (Titus  iii.  9;  1  Tim.  i.  4).  The  utter  valueless- 
ness  of  these  reasonings,  which  filled  the  air,  is  repeat- 
edly pointed  out  (1  Tim.  i.  6 ;  vi.  20 ;  Titus  i.  10 ; 
2  Tim.  ii.  16),  and  their  baneful  consequences  pic- 
tured. They  are,  —  strife,  contentions  about  words 
(1  Tim.  vi.  4),  and  their  inevitable  result,  divisions 
(Titus  iii.  10).  Such  tendencies  subvert  the  peace  of 
families  (Titus  i.  11)  and  act  as  a  hindrance  to  Chris- 
tian faith  (2  Tim.  ii.  18).  The  motive  of  this  false 
teaching,  he  declares,  will  be  found  to  be  greed  of 
gain  (1  Tim.  vi.  5;  Titus  i.  11). 

These  speculations  cannot  be  clearly  identified  with 
the  tenets  of  any  particular  sect.  They  were  probably 
tendencies  of  thought  which  were  represented  by  no 
special  party,  but  were  common  in  one  form  or 
another  in  the  communities  where  the  evangelists 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  called  to  labor. 

This  group  of  epistles,  then,  presents  little  for  the 
construction  of  Pauline  doctrine.  Where  points  of 
doctrine  are  touched  upon,  they  are  in  accord  with 
Paul's  teaching  as  unfolded  elsewhere.  Examples  are 
found  in  the  allusions  to  the  apostle's  conversion  and 
calling  to  his  office  (1  Tim.  i.  12  8^.),  God's  gracious 
purpose  of  salvation  (2  Tim.  i.  9  sq.  ;  Titus  iii.  5),  the 
references  to  dying  with  Christ  (2  Tim.  ii.  11)  and  to 
the  expectation  of  his  appearing  (Titus  ii.  13).  While, 


SOURCES  OF  PAULINE  DOCTRINE  95 

therefore,  the  peculiarities  of  this  group  of  epistles 
should  be  allowed  their  full  weight  in  evidence,  it 
cannot  be  fairly  affirmed  that  they  are  essentially  un- 
Pauline  in  character,  or  that  their  tone  and  language 
preclude  the  view  that  they  were  written  late  in  Paul's 
life  under  conditions  which  history  does  not  enable  us 
clearly  to  define,  and  for  purposes  which  would,  in  the 
nature  of  the  case  which  this  theory  supposes,  prevent 
them  from  following  the  lines  of  exposition  marked 
out  in  previous  letters,  as  well  as  impart  to  them  such 
peculiarities  of  diction  and  of  argument  as  would 
easily  give  rise  to  critical  difficulties. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 

THE  apostle's  conception  of  God  is  developed  quite 
incidentally,  and  has  commonly  received  no  separate 
treatment  by  writers  on  biblical  theology.  But  this 
conception  is  of  first  importance  for  Paul's  doctrinal 
system,  and  is  deserving  of  a  careful  elucidation  ;  for 
it  is  in  the  thought  of  God  that  the  plan  of  grace  for 
sinners  must  arise,  and  it  must  be  executed  in  accord- 
ance with  his  fixed  purpose.  It  will  be  convenient  to 
discuss  the  subject  under  three  heads  :  (1)  The  doc- 
trine of  God's  nature  or  essence  ;  (2)  The  doctrine  of 
divine  revelation;  and  (3)  The  doctrine  of  God's 
sovereignty  and  providential  superintendence. 

In  his  address  at  Athens  (Acts  xvii.  22  s<?.)  when  con- 
fronting representatives  of  those  philosophical  schools 
which  had  speculated  most  upon  the  nature  of  the 
Divine  Being,  Paul  unfolds,  in  certain  bearings  of  it, 
his  idea  of  God  most  fully.  He  asserts  the  creatorship 
and  spirituality  of  God, — that  he  is  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  and  does  not  confine  his  manifestation  to  shrines 
or  te&ples  made  by  man.  He  declares  that  the  course 
of  history  is  subject  to  God's  providence,  and  is  so 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  97 

ordered  as  to  lead  men  to  seek  to  know  him,  and  that 
he  is  near  to  all  men  by  virtue  of  their  moral  kinship 
to  him.  He  further  asserts  that  God  has  made  allow- 
ance for  the  comparative  ignorance  concerning  true 
religion  in  pre-Christian  times,  but  that  now  he  calls 
all  men  to  repentance.  The  Acts  contain,  no  doubt, 
but  a  sketch  of  Paul's  argument ;  but  the  points  touched 
upon  are  so  fundamental  as  to  form  the  elements  of 
an  entire  philosophy  concerning  God.  The  truths  of 
man's  essential  kinship  to  God,  of  God's  spiritual 
omnipresence,  and  of  his  universal  revelation  are 
foundation-stones  in  the  apostle's  teaching.  God  is 
to  him  the  self-revealing  God,  who  makes  himself 
known  to  the  creatures  who  are  akin  to  himself 
through  the  courses  of  human  history.  He  is  the 
living  God  of  providence,  who  stands  in  close  per- 
sonal relation  to  mankind,  and  by  successive  and 
progressive  revelations  seeks  to  bring  them  into 
harmony  with  himself. 

We  should  search  in  vain  for  any  abstract  definition 
of  the  ethical  nature  of  God  in  the  writings  of  Paul  or 
for  any  enumeration  or  analysis  of  his  attributes ; 
but  his  attitude  and  action  toward  mankind  con- 
sidered as  sinners  or  as  the  subjects  of  redemption 
furnish  occasion  for  many  incidental  statements  touch- 
ing his  nature.  In  assigning  to  love  the  pre-eminence 
among  virtues  (1  Cor.  xiii.  13),  and  in  designating 
love  as  moral  perfection  (xiii.  10),  is  involved  the  logi- 
cal necessity  of  making  love  the  essential  glory  of  the 
divine  perfectness.  In  the  divine  love  is  found  the 

7 


98  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

motive  of  redemption  through  Christ :  "  God  com- 
mendeth  his  own  love  toward  us,  in  that,  while  we 
were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us  "  (Rom.  v.  8 ; 
cf.  Eph.  ii.  16  ;  2  Thess.  ii.  16).  In  a  similar  man- 
ner redemption  is  derived  from  mercy  (e\eo?),  which 
is  a  name  for  the  pitying  disposition  of  God  toward 
sinners,  as  love  is  a  name  for  his  disposition  and 
effort  to  bless  and  save  them.  Those  who  are  saved 
are  "vessels  of  mercy"  (Rom.  ix.  23);  and  it  was 
because  God  is  "  rich  in  mercy "  (Eph.  ii.  4)  that 
men  have  been  saved  in  Christ.  Salvation  is  also 
repeatedly  ascribed  to  grace  (^apt?),  which  is  a  name 
for  the  energy  of  love  as  it  goes  out  toward  the  un- 
deserving. Salvation  has  its  source  in  love  as  the 
essence  of  God's  being ;  considered  as  a  work  on  be- 
half of  helpless  and  pitiable  sinners,  it  may  be  ascribed 
to  God's  mercy ;  considered  as  a  boon  to  the  ill-de- 
serving, it  is  attributed  to  grace  (Rom.  iii.  24  ;  iv.  4  ; 
2  Cor.  viii.  9 ;  Gal.  i.  6).1  These  are  but  differing 
phases  of  the  same  thought,  and  alike  illustrate  the 
great  idea  that  redemption  springs  from  within  the 
Divine  Being,  and  is  wholly  gratuitous  on  God's  part. 
God  seeks  to  save  men  because  it  is  according  to  his 
nature  to  do  so.  His  pitying  love  initiates  and  carries 
forward  the  work  in  sovereign  mercy  independently 
of  all  human  deserving.  God's  action  in  redemp- 
tion is  free  and  absolute,  springing  wholly  from 
within  himself. 

1  "  II  D?  X'V**]  de"signe  1'amour  de  Dieu  en  action,  intervenant 
directement  et  positivement  dans  les  destinies  de  1'humanite  pour 
la  relever  "  (Sabatier,  L'Apotre  Paul,  p.  300  ;  Eng.  tr.  p.  822). 


THE  DOCTKINE  OF  GOD  99 

But  there  is  a  second  set  of  expressions  which  give 
us  another  phase  of  the  essential  character  of  God, 
and  which  constitute  the  counterpart  of  those  just 
enumerated.  So  long  as  men  persist  in  sin,  they  are 
the  objects  of  the  divine  wrath  (0/9777  #eoO)  :  "  For  the 
wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all 
ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men  "  (Rom.  i.  18  ; 
cf.  ii.  8).  This  term  0/9777  describes  the  disposition 
and  attitude  of  God  toward  sinful  men ;  it  is  the  holy 
energy  of  God's  nature  in  repudiating  and  punishing 
sin.  It  is  not  antithetic  to  love  in  such  a  sense  that 
the  two  exclude  each  other,  since  in  that  case  the 
sinful  world  described  by  Paul  in  Rom.  i.  and  ii.,  which 
was  the  object  of  the  0/5777  8eov,  could  never  have  been 
saved.  It  is  the  divine  displeasure  at  sin,  but  it  does 
not  abate  the  energy  of  the  divine  love,  which  still 
makes  the  sinful  world  the  object  of  its  redemptive 
purpose.  Closely  allied  to  this  expression  is  the  phrase 
Sitcaioarvvr)  deov  where  it  is  employed  to  designate  a 
divine  attribute.  It  denotes  that  self-respecting  qual- 
ity of  holiness  in  God,  that  reaction  of  his  nature 
against  sin,  which  must  find  expression  in  condemna- 
tion of  it.  It  clearly  comes  into  view  in  this  sense  in 
Rom.  iii.  25,  26,  where  the  thought  is  that  since  God 
had  so  long  shown  indulgence  to  sinful  men  in  past 
ages,  it  was  necessary  to  reveal  and  vindicate  his 
righteousness  in  the  work  of  Christ.  By  accomplish- 
ing a  work  of  reconciliation  between  God  and  men, 
Christ  effected  a  revelation  of  God's  righteousness 
rr}9  Sitcaiotrvwr)?  avroO),  which  vindicates  the 


100  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

divine  displeasure  at  sin,  as  well  as  shows  God  to  be 
the  gracious  justifier  of  men.  Without  entering  fur- 
ther upon  the  interpretation  of  this  passage,  which 
will  be  considered  later,  it  is  certain  that  the  term 
Siicaiocrvvij  deov  denotes  that  quality  of  God's  being 
which  might  seem  to  have  been  in  abeyance  while 
he  leniently  treated  the  sinners  of  past  generations 
(cf.  Acts  xvii.  30),  which  is,  nevertheless,  always 
operative  in  the  treatment  of  sin,  and  in  accordance 
with  which  all  gracious  treatment  of  sinners  must  be 
planned  and  executed.  Righteousness,  then,  may  be 
defined  as  that  essential  quality  of  the  divine  nature 
which  makes  God  displeased  at  sin,  and  which  must 
find  expression  in  all  treatment  of  sin.  It  is  the 
self -preservative  attribute  of  God,  and  expresses 
especially  his  feeling  toward  sin,  which  issues  in  the 
0/9777  Oeov.1 

It  is  clear,  however,  that  the  Sucaioo-vvr)  6eov  cannot 
be  thought  of  by  the  apostle  as  in  any  way  inconsis- 
tent with  his  love  or  grace;  God  must  manifest  his 
righteousness  in  the  very  forgiveness  of  sins.  If 
righteousness  in  the  strictest  penal  sense  were  here 
meant,  there  would  be  a  complete  contradiction  in  the 
apostle's  thought,  since  the  setting-forth  of  Christ  as 
a  propitiation  is  the  very  opposite  of  an  infliction  of 

1  "  Der  apostel  versteht,  Rom.  iii.  25  sq.,  wie  tins  scheint, 
tmter  SiKaioa-vvrj,  und  zwar  in  Ubereinstimmung  mit  dem  A.  T. 
Sprachgebrauch  und  Lehrgedanken  zumal  in  Prophetismus,  die- 
jenige  Eigenschaft  Gottes,  kraft  welcher  er  die  heilige  Weltord- 
nung  aufrecht  erhalt  und  verwirklicht "  (Lechler,  Das  apos. 
Zeitalter,  p.  346). 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  101 

punishment.  If  the  necessity  of  exhibiting  God's 
righteousness  means  the  necessity  of  actually  punish- 
ing sin,  then  that  necessity  has  not  been  realized, 
since  God  has  from  the  first  been  ready  to  forgive 
sin.  The  idea  that  Sttcaiocrvwr)  here  means  the  neces- 
sity of  punishing  sin  leads  to  the  view  that  God  pun- 
ished Christ  with  the  full  penalty  of  the  world's  sin,  — 
a  view  which  annuls  the  very  idea,  of  punishment, 
since  punishment  for  sin  can  be  inflicted  only  upon 
those  who  commit  it,  and  the  notion  of  punishing  an 
innocent  person  is  the  essence  of  injustice  and  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms.1 

The  object  of  the  apostle  is  to  show,  not  how  God 
could  effect  the  punishment  of  sin  in  order  to  forgive 
it,  but  how  he  could  effect  its  forgiveness  in  a  way 
which  should  at  the  same  time  express  and  satisfy  his 
displeasure  at  sin.  The  divine  SIKCUOO-VVT)  is  no 
barrier  to  the  divine  grace,  but  is  an  element  of  the 
divine  nature  in  accord  with  which  the  purposes  of 
that  grace  must  be  effected.  Righteousness  is  there- 
fore antithetic  to  mercy  and  love  only  so  far  as  it 
conditions  and  determines  the  method  of  their  action, 
not  as  denoting  a  necessity  of  punishment  in  God 
which  must  be  carried  out  in  a  penal  infliction  before 
the  way  is  open  to  the  operation  of  love.  That  God's 
love  should  go  forth  toward  sinners  is  an  axiomatic 
thought  with  Paul ;  he  has  always  been  gracious  to 
them,  and  has  been  receiving  and  forgiving  them  upon 

1  Cf.  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol.  §  80  c,  note  13 ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  428, 
note  12. 


102  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

faith,  but  his  gracious  treatment  of  sinful  men  must 
not  be  thought  to  indicate  the  quiescence  of  his  right- 
eousness. In  Christ  he  has  found  a  way  to  manifest 
that  righteousness  and  to  show  that  he  has  no  tolera- 
tion of  sin,  in  the  very  execution  of  his  purposes  of 
mercy.  Righteousness,  therefore,  is  a  quality  which 
in  no  way  antagonizes,  but  only  so  determines  and 
limits,  the  action  of  love  that  in  all  such  action  the 
displeasure  of  God  at  sin  must  be  fully  revealed. 
It  demands,  not  the  infliction  of  punishment,  which  in 
God's  mercy  does  not  take  place,  but  such  a  substitute 
for  the  infliction  of  punishment  as  shall  express  God's 
uprightness  and  condemnation  of  sin,  while  at  the 
same  time  he  forgives  it  without  punishment.  No 
analysis  of  the  divine  attributes  which  opposes  God's 
righteousness  to  his  love,  or  predicates  the  necessity 
of  the  punishment  of  sin  before  it  can  be  forgiven,  can 
be  harmonized  with  Paul's  thought  of  a  gracious  treat- 
ment of  sin  which  shall  at  the  same  time  manifest 
God's  righteousness.1 

1  It  would  be  aside  from  my  present  purpose  to  enter  upon  the 
theological  question  of  the  relation  of  the  divine  attribute  of  love 
(mercy,  grace)  to  that  of  righteousness  (justice),  although  the 
preceding  remarks  lead  directly  to  it.  A  few  definitions  on  this 
relation  are  subjoined,  with  the  substance  of  which  I  agree :  "  La 
&iKcuo<rvvr)  6(ov  est  une  vertu  positive  qui  se  communique,  se 
donne,  et  se  confond  avec  Tamour.  On  pourrait  dire  que  la  jus- 
tice, en  ce  sens,  est  le  contenu  meme  de  1'amour  de  Dieu,  et  1'amour, 
la  forme  essentielle  de  sa  justice  (Rom.  iii.  21-26)  "  (Sabatier, 
o.  c.  p.  800 ;  Eng.  tr.  p.  822).  The  above  definition  cannot  of 
course  apply  to  such  passages  as  Rom.  i.  17  and  iii.  21,  but  only  to 
those  in  which  &IKOUMTVVI)  designates  an  attribute  of  God,  and  here 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  103 

Divine  revelation  is,  in  the  apostle's  view,  universal  in 
extent.  Among  the  heathen  God  did  not  leave  himself 
without  a  witness  to  his  benevolence  and  providence, 
but  in  the  succession  of  the  seasons  and  the  bounties 
of  nature  taught  them  of  himself  (Acts  xiv.  IT).  The 
course  of  history  also,  especially  the  providential  ap- 
pointment of  periods  for  the  life  of  nations  and  of  defi- 
nite boundaries  for  their  dwellings,  is  a  method  of  divine 
revelation  (Acts  xvii.  26),  by  which  God  was  seeking 
to  lead  the  world  to  a  knowledge  of  himself.  Above 
all,  is  the  moral  nature,  the  conscience,  a  point  of 
contact  between  God  and  man  (Rom.  ii.  14, 15).  The 
idea  of  God's  revelation  to  the  nations  in  nature  and 
in  conscience  is  most  fully  developed  by  Paul.  That 
which  they  were  capable  of  knowing  concerning  God 
(TO  yvwa-Tov  rov  0eov,  Rom.  i.  19)  was  manifested  to 

with  some  modification.  "  We  must  recognize  it  to  be  a  necessary 
and  truly  Christian  effort,  to  trace  all  God's  dealings  with  the  world 
to  love  as  their  original  source.  Even  God's  wrath  is  in  its  ultimate 
essence  love ;  love  itself  is  '  a  consuming  fire '  against  all  which  is 
opposed  to  it,  —  the  very  essence  of  good-  Love  would  not  be  true 
to  itself  if  it  did  not  repudiate  its  opposite  "  (Miiller,  The  Chris- 
tian Doctrine  of  Sin,  i.  248). 

"  Dass  sich  die  heilige  Liebe  allenthalben  und  dass  nur  sie  sich 
an  und  in  der  Welt  verwirklichen  will,  ist  die  ganz  allgemeine 
Gerechtigkeit  Gottes,  justitia  universalis  von  den  Theologen 
genannt,  nichts  anders  als  die  Treue  seiner  Liebe  oder  als  seine 
Wahrhaftigkeit,  folglich  auch  an  ihrem  Orte  Gnade,  Barmherzig- 
keit  nnd  Gute"  (Nitzsch,  Syst.  d.  Christl.  Lehre,  p.  180).  I  ven- 
ture further  to  refer  to  what  I  have  written  on  this  subject  in  the 
Baptist  Review  (July,  1881,  312-319),  and  the  New  Eiylandef 
(June,  1888,  422-431). 


104  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

them  through  the  creations  of  the  visible  world,  which 
are  so  interpreted  by  the  mind  (voovpeva)  as  to  assure 
it  of  God's  power  and  divineness  (8iW/us  fcai  0ei6rr}<;). 
This  revelation  -is  sufficient  to  found  responsibility 
and  to  leave  the  Gentile  world  inexcusable  for  its  dis- 
obedience, immorality,  and  idolatry  (ei?  TO  elvat  avrovs 
ava7ro\oyiJTov<;,  i.  20).  God  has  therefore  revealed 
himself  to  all  men  in  nature  through  the  capacity  of 
reason  to  discern  and  interpret  the  evidences  of  his 
power  and  divinity  as  thus  manifested. 

In  the  course  of  an  argument  to  show  that  the  Jews, 
as  little  as  the  sinful  Gentiles,  can  be  justified  by 
deeds  of  legal  obedience  (Rom.  ii.  1-iii.  20),  Paul 
incidentally  dwells  upon  the  manifestation  of  God 
which  is  made  directly  to  the  conscience  of  the 
heathen  man  (ii.  14,  15).  Although  the  Gentiles  have 
no  written  law  like  the  Mosaic,  yet  if  they  ever  obey 
the  ethical  requirements  of  that  written  divine  law, 
they  are  in  that  case  a  law  unto  themselves  ;  that  is, 
they  thereby  show  that  they  have  within  themselves  the 
capacity  to  recognize  the  obligations  of  the  divine  law, 
and  that,  so  far  as  they  obey,  its  essential  principles 
are  ruling  their  lives.  So  far  as  they  thus  obey,  they 
prove  that  the  law's  requirements  are  written  on  their 
hearts,  by  the  fact  that  their  conscience  approves  the 
obedience,  and  convicts  them  of  sin  when  disobedient. 
How  far  Paul  may  have  conceived  such  actual  obedi- 
ence on  the  part  of  Gentiles  possible,  is  not  a  question 
of  importance  for  the  point  under  consideration. 
Whether  they  ever  actually  obeyed  the  requirements 


THE  DOCTRINE  OP  GOD  105 

of  divine  law  or  not,  it  is  certain  that  he  credits  them 
with  the  capacity  for  so  doing,  and  so  supposes,  at 
least,  the  abstract  possibility.  Their  moral  nature 
was  able  to  yield  them  such  a  knowledge  of  right  and 
duty  that  it  was  conceivable  that  they  should  without 
further  revelation  conform,  at  least  in  some  measure, 
to  the  essential  contents  of  the  Old  Testament  com- 
mandments (ra  rov  j/6/Lioi/) ;  and  even  if  in  actual 
fact  their  moral  lives  were  ever  so  base,  the  accusa- 
tions of  conscience  proved  the  existence  of  a  sense  of 
ill-desert  which  itself  presupposed  a  knowledge  of  the 
right. 

That  the  constitution  of  man  is  religious  is  an 
axiom  with  Paul.  No  degree  of  actual  sinfulness 
can  cast  doubt  upon  this  fundamental  truth.  It  is 
certain  that  the  apostle  holds  it  to  be  impossible 
for  the  Gentile  to  be  saved  by  following  the  "  light  of 
nature ; "  but  this  is  not  because  of  the  inadequacy  of 
that  light,  but  because  he  cannot  perfectly  follow  it. 
It  is  equally  true  that  the  Ten  Commandments  cannot 
save  the  Jew,  not  because  they  are  an  insufficient 
epitome  of  human  duty,  but  because  man  is  morally 
powerless  perfectly  to  obey  them.  There  is  the  same 
abstract  possibility  of  the  Gentile's  being  saved  by 
obeying  the  voice  of  God  to  him  in  nature  and  con- 
science as  there  is  of  the  Jew's  being  saved  by  keeping 
the  Mosaic  law ;  but  in  point  of  fact,  since  men  are 
universally  sinful  and  weak,  both  are  equally  im- 
possible (Rom.  viii.  3). 

But  the  very  fact  that  the  one  case  is  as  conceiv- 


106  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

able  as  the  other  proves  that  to  the  apostle's  mind 
the  revelation  of  God  to  the  Gentile  was  adequate  to 
guide  him  who  should  have  perfectly  followed  it  to 
salvation.  If  it  was  adequate  to  make  men  "  without 
excuse  "  for  their  disregard  of  it,  it  must  have  been 
adequate  to  have  furnished  them  justification  for 
perfect  obedience.  A  law  cannot  condemn  for  dis- 
obedience farther  than  it  can  reward  for  obedience. 
It  will  be  seen  that  the  apostle's  principles  require  a 
somewhat  exalted  view  of  this  universal  revelation  of 
God.  It  performs  the  same  function  in  the  heathen 
world  as  the  Old  Testament  law  does  in  the  Jewish  ; 
it  is  equally  competent  to  ground  moral  responsibility, 
equally  competent  to  pronounce  men  inexcusable  for 
their  sins,  and,  abstractly  considered,  would  be  as 
capable  of  showing  the  way  of  salvation  as  the  Mosaic 
system  would  be  (i.  19;  ii.  12-15,  26;  iii.  20-23). 
This  point,  however,  receives  no  emphasis,  because  the 
sinf  ulness  of  men  excludes  both  possibilities  alike.  Yet 
it  is  a  point  which  is  logically  assumed  in  Paul's  whole 
argument  to  prove  that  in  respect  to  securing  justifi- 
cation Jews  and  Gentiles  stand  upon  the  same  plane, 
and  that  the  former  have  no  advantage  over  the  latter 
in  the  mere  possession  of  their  law.  They  would 
have  an  advantage  only  in  case  they  obeyed  their  law 
better  than  the  Gentiles  did  theirs,  which  is  not  the 
case :  "  Thou  [the  Jew]  dost  practise  the  same  things" 
(Rom.  ii.  1)  ;  "  There  is  no  distinction "  (iii.  22) ; 
"  Doers  of  a  law  shall  be  justified  "  (ii.  13). 

To  the  Jews  God  has  given  a  special  revelation 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  107 

which,  though  not  a  means  by  which  they  can  be 
justified,  gives  them  a  great  advantage  in  the  knowl- 
edge of  right  and  duty  and  in  assurances  of  the  divine 
favor  (Rom.  iii.  1,  2).  On  the  other  hand,  the  posses- 
sion of  these  superior  advantages  carries  with  it  a 
heavier  responsibility  and  a  heavier  condemnation  for 
disobedience  to  God.  As  the  principle,  "  To  the 
Jew  first,  and  also  to  the  Greek,"  was  applicable  to 
religious  privilege  as  showing  that  an  economic  pre- 
cedence was  accorded  to  the  Jews  in  the  historic 
order  of  salvation  (Rom.  i.  16),  so  the  same  principle 
was  applicable  to  religious  responsibility,  as  indicating 
that  from  those  to  whom  more  had  been  given  the 
more  would  be  required  (Rom.  ii.  9).  The  nature 
and  ends  of  this  special  revelation  will  be  considered 
in  a  later  chapter. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  in  the  apostle's  view  revela- 
tion is  universal.  Although  he  states  the  fact  of  a 
manifestation  of  God  in  the  extra-Jewish  world  only 
incidentally  and  within  the  limits  determined  by 
courses  of  argument  which  bear  directly  upon  other 
points,  yet  the  fact  is  assumed  as  indubitable.  Nor 
ought  this  fact  to  be  obscured  by  the  great  emphasis 
which  is  laid  upon  the  sinfulness  and  practical  god- 
lessness  of  the  Gentile  world  which  it  came  more  imme- 
diately within  his  purpose  to  describe.  Their  degra- 
dation was  in  spite  of  the  knowledge  which  they  had 
possessed  (Rom.  i.  21-23) ;  their  idolatry  was  a  per- 
version of  that  knowledge,  resulting  from  sin  and 
from  dulled  spiritual  perceptions.  Thus  the  dark 


108  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

picture  is  distinctly  set  upon  the  background  of  a 
universal  self-manifestation  of  God,  and  in  the  few 
brief  references  which  have  been  preserved  to  us  are 
contained  the  germs  of  all  theistic  philosophy.  They 
may  be  briefly  summarized  thus  :  God  reveals  himself 

(1)  in  the  world  of  nature  (ra  jap  dopara  avrov  diro 
KTi<reo)<>  Kovfiov  rot?  TTOirjuao'iv  KaOoparai,  Rom.  i.  20) ; 

(2)  in  the  providential  course  of  history  (Acts  xvii. 
26,  27)  ;   (3)  in  the  constitution  of  man,  which  is 
morally  kindred  to  the  divine  nature   (rov  yap  teal 
yevos  ea-fiev,  Acts  xvii.  28)  ;  and  (4)  this  revelation  is 
effected  and  appreciated  through  the  action  of  man's 
rational  powers  upon  the  phenomena  of  nature,  history, 
and  moral   consciousness  (ra  dopara  voov/j,eva  Kaffo- 
pdrai).     In  virtue  of  the  rational  and  moral  kinship 
of  man  to  God  he  is  capable  of  a  truer  and  higher 
thought  of  God  than  had  been  developed  in  heathen- 
ism.    Being  God's  offspring,  man  is  not  true  to  his 
own  nature  when  he  localizes,  limits,  and  degrades 
the  Deity  by  identifying  him  with  images  and  creatures 
(yevos  ovv  vTrdpftovres  rov  6eov  OVK  o0ei\o/iey  vopi&iv 
K.  r.  X.,  Acts  xvii.  29),  but  thinks  normally  and  health- 
fully only  when  he  interprets  by  his  reason  the  facts 
of  nature  and  conscience  as  evidence  of  a  divine  power 
and  infinite  wisdom  pervading  the  universe. 

The  apostle's  conception  of  the  nature  of  God  and 
of  man's  relations  to  him  is  such  as  to  exhibit  a  logical 
ground  in  the  being  of  God  for  revelation  and  re- 
demption. It  is  in  harmony  with  God's  nature  to 
graciously  reveal  himself.  The  presuppositions  of 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  109 

redemption  are  found,  on  the  one  side,  in  the  love  of 
God,  which  goes  out  in  efforts  to  bless  and  save  man, 
and,  on  the  other,  in  man's  native  kinship  to  God  and 
capacity  to  know  and  love  him ;  but  salvation  is  a 
work  that  has  to  do,  not  with  man  as  such,  or  with 
him  in  his  true  and  ideal  character,  but  with  man  as  a 
sinner.  The  motive  which  prompts  his  salvation  and 
the  means  chosen  to  effect  it  must  be  so  directed  and 
controlled  by  the  necessary  recoil  of  the  divine  nature 
against  sin  as  to  express  and  vindicate  that  feeling 
in  the  very  process  of  salvation  itself.  Paul's  thought 
of  God's  nature  is  that  the  love  of  God  in  effecting 
man's  salvation  and  in  remitting  punishment  for  sin, 
must  affirm  and  maintain  its  inviolable  holiness.  This 
is  done  by  affording  in  the  work  of  Christ  a  substi- 
tute for  punishment  which  at  the  same  time  meets 
the  ends  of  punishment.  Thus  the  work  of  divine 
love  which  God  wrought  in  Christ  meets  at  once  the 
ends  of  the  divine  mercy  or  grace  and  of  the  divine 
righteousness,  not  because  Christ  accomplishes  a 
reconciliation  of  them  as  if  they  had  been  until  then 
in  antagonism,  but  because,  since  they  are  in  eternal 
harmony,  the  divine  love  could  choose  and  pursue  a 
mode  of  salvation  which  should  adequately  reveal, 
vindicate,  and  satisfy  both.  Paul  knows  nothing  of 
the  conflict  within  the  Divine  Being  which  speculative 
theology  has  presupposed.  He  does  not  betray  any 
consciousness  of  inconsistency  between  God's  char- 
acter as  righteous  and  as  justifying  men.  God  is 
both  just  and  justifier  with  no  suggestion  of  contra- 


110  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

diction  or  inconsistency,  because  his  eternally  harmo- 
nious moral  attributes  are  alike  operative,  and  in  their 
operation  alike  satisfied,  in  the  saving  work  of  Christ. 

The  thought  of  God's  free  and  sovereign  grace  in 
initiating  and  carrying  forward  the  work  of  human 
salvation  is  prominent  in  the  writings  of  Paul.  The 
redemption  was  wrought  "  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his 
grace,  which  he  freely  bestowed  on  us  in  the  Beloved " 
(Eph.  i.  5,  6).  The  plan  of  grace  was  eternally  in 
the  purpose  and  foreordination  of  God  (Eph.  i.  4,  5)  ; 
a  "  wisdom  in  a  mystery  "  which  God  foreordained 
before  the  worlds  unto  our  glory  (1  Cor.  ii.  7).  The 
fullest  statement  of  God's  sovereignty  in  salvation, 
according  to  which  he  hath  mercy  on  whom  he  will 
and  hardeneth  whom  he  will,  is  found  in  chapters 
ix.-xi.  of  Romans,  which  treat  of  the  fall  and  restora- 
tion of  the  Jewish  people. 

If  we  inquire  for  the  practical  religious  motive  of 
the  apostle  in  these  representations,  we  shall  find  it 
in  his  intense  conviction  of  the  sole  efficiency  of  the 
divine  grace  in  salvation.  His  aim  is  to  exclude  all 
appeal  to  human  merit,  and  to  ascribe  salvation  to 
the  gracious  purpose  of  God  alone.  His  statements 
on  this  subject  have  as  practical  a  purpose  as  do 
those  relating  to  justification  as  a  work  of  divine 
grace  instead  of  human  merit.  In  fact,  his  descrip- 
tion of  the  divine  foreordination  of  salvation  is  but 
the  doctrine  of  God's  free  grace  applied  to  the  initia- 
tion of  the  work  in  the  divine  purpose. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  111 

This  mode  of  thought  was  thoroughly  germane  to 
the  Jewish  mind.  It  harmonized  with  the  intense 
sense  of  God  and  the  deep  conviction  of  his  sole  effi- 
ciency which  pervaded  the  Old  Testament.  No  phi- 
losophy which  makes  man  the  object  of  its  study  — 
which  emphasizes  his  self-consciousness  and  free- 
dom—  had  thrust  upon  the  minds  of  the  Jewish 
people  the  metaphysical  problems  which  spring  up 
in  an  attempt  to  define  the  relation  of  the  divine 
to  the  human  activity  in  salvation.  Paul  had  no 
thought  of  discussing  such  a  problem.  When  treat- 
ing of  the  divine  efficiency  in  redemption  and  of  the 
divine  origination  of  it,  he  spoke  freely  a.nd  unre- 
servedly from  the  standpoint  of  God's  good  pleasure 
in  the  choice  of  men  to  salvation ;  when  speaking  of 
the  human  conditions  of  its  appropriation,  he  speaks 
as  unreservedly  from  that  point  of  view,  laying  full, 
strong  emphasis  upon  the  capacity  of  men  to  receive 
or  reject  the  offered  grace,  and  upon  their  responsibil- 
ity for  their  choice  (for  example,  see  Rom.  ix.  32; 
x.  3,  9-13). 

Since  the  purpose  to  save  men  is  eternal  in  God's 
mind,  each  man  is  saved  because  it  was  God's  pur- 
pose to  save  him.  Considered  from  this  point  of 
view,  and  without  reference  to  the  conditions  on 
man's  part  of  appropriating  to  himself  the  proffered 
salvation,  Christians  are  said  to  be  "  foreordained 
unto  adoption  as  sons  through  Jesus  Christ"  (Eph. 
i.  5).  Election  is  the  application  of  the  preordaining 
purpose.  The  purpose  of  salvation,  considered  as  ter- 


112  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

minating  upon  an  individual  or  a  class  of  individuals, 
is  the  election  of  that  individual  or  class  to  salvation. 
In  Rom.  ix.  Paul  carries  the  thought  of  God's  agency 
one  step  further.  He  there  develops  the  idea  that 
there  were  two  Israels,  —  a  true  and  a  false.  "  They 
are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel ;  neither,  because 
they  are  Abraham's  seed,  are  they  all  children  "  (Rom. 
ix.  6,  7).  On  the  contrary,  there  were  limitations  by 
which  the  true  Israel  was  marked  off  from  the  nom- 
inal Israel ;  there  was  a  select  inner  circle,  distin- 
guished from  the  rest,  whom  God  had  chosen  out 
from  the  mass  of  the  nation  in  accordance  with  the 
promises  relating  to  the  birth  of  Isaac  and  the  choice 
of  Jacob.  God  does  not  dispense  his  blessings  ac- 
cording to  claims  founded  upon  natural  descent  from 
Abraham,  but  in  accordance  with  his  sovereign  pleas- 
ure, quite  independently  of  such  claims.  The  apostle 
does  not  deny  that  he  has  the  best  of  reasons  for  his 
action,  but  only  denies  that  these  can  be  fathomed  by 
men,  and  that  men  are  competent  to  criticise  his 
action.  The  primary  purpose  of  the  apostle  is  to 
exclude  meritorious  claims  as  determining  God's  pro- 
cedure, and  to  assert  that  the  ground  of  his  action  is 
wholly  within  his  own  wisdom  and  freedom. 

Can  any  complain  of  the  divine  choice,  exclaims 
Paul,  and  he  answers  by  appealing  to  the  absoluteness 
of  God's  mercy  as  affirmed  in  the  Old  Testament,  "  I 
will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy"  (Ex. 
xxxiii.  19),  and  by  quoting  the  Old  Testament  repre- 
sentation of  God's  hardening  Pharaoh's  heart  so  that 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  113 

he  should  not  let  Israel  go,  in  order  to  manifest  his 
power  in  overcoming  the  monarch's  determined  but 
really  feeble  resistance  (Ex.  ix.  12, 16).  The  lesson 
which  Paul  draws  from  these  examples  is  that  man 
may  not  reply  against  God  ;  the  vessel  which  the 
potter  has  fashioned  may  not  say  to  him  that  formed 
it,  "  Why  didst  thou  make  me  thus  ?  "  (Rom.  ix.  20.) 
Whatever  doctrinal  or  ethical  difficulties  may  be 
raised  in  connection  with  this  passage,  it  is  the  part 
of  exegesis  to  interpret  its  terms  in  accord  with  their 
natural  force,  and  in  accord  with  Paul's  modes  of 
thought  and  methods  of  handling  Old  Testament  pas- 
sages. The  Old  Testament  did  represent  God  as  harden- 
ing Pharaoh's  heart  (Ex.  ix.  12),  but  did  not  fail  to 
describe  Pharaoh  as  sinfully  hardening  his  own  heart 
also  (Ex.  ix.  34,  35).  The  prophet  represents  God  as 
saying,  "  I  loved  Jacob,  but  Esau  I  hated  "  (Mai.  i. 
2,  3),  without,  however,  referring  to  those  reasons  for 
this  attitude  of  God  toward  the  two  men  which  may 
be  found  in  Genesis  (xxv.  34 ;  xxvii.  41).  The  apos- 
tle's argument  accords  with  frequent  forms  of  state- 
ment for  the  absoluteness  of  God's  action  in  the  Old 
Testament,  according  to  which  calamity  and  adversity 
("  evil,"  JH)  are  ascribed  directly  to  God's  creative 
agency  (Is.  xlv.  7  ;  Amos  iii.  6).  More  analytical 
methods  of  thought  are  wont  to  apply  distinctions 
here  such  as  that  between  the  efficient  and  permis- 
sive agency  of  God,  and  to  make  the  effort  to  draw 
lines  between  that  which  God  does  without  relation 
to  human  agency  and  those  actions  of  God  which  in 

8 


114  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  nature  of  the  case  are  conditioned  by  human 
action,  since  they  relate  directly  to  the  choices  and 
character  of  men.  These  distinctions  Jewish  thought 
did  not  make  in  any  philosophical  manner.  The 
freedom  and  responsibility  of  men  were  emphasized 
in  appropriate  connections ;  the  efficiency  of  God 
was  asserted  in  unqualified  terms  where  the  point  of 
view  was  distinctively  that  of  the  divine  agency  and 
power.  No  effort  was  made  to  define  or  adjust  these 
two  truths ;  that  is,  the  Jews  had  no  metaphysical 
philosophy. 

Paul's  utterances  touching  these  subjects  are  wholly 
in  the  vein  of  Jewish  thought.  Where  the  aim  is  to 
humble  human  pride  and  pretension  before  the  sover- 
eign might  of  God,  he  overleaps  all  human  conditions, 
and  without  definition  or  qualification  asserts  the 
divine  absoluteness,  as  though  God  dealt  with  men  as 
the  potter  deals  with  passive  clay,  fashioning  them 
into  vessels  of  honor  or  of  dishonor  as  he  pleases. 
But  when  again  the  aim  is  to  silence  human  excuses 
for  neglect  and  disobedience,  he  brings  into  full 
prominence  the  free  wrong  choices  and  conduct  of 
men  as  the  reason  for  God's  rejection  and  condemna- 
tion. If  from  the  former  point  of  view,  chapter  ix. 
pictures  the  unconditional  right  of  God  to  deal  with 
men  as  he  will,  the  tenth  chapter,  where  the  Jews' 
self-justification  comes  into  view,  fully  recognizes  their 
own  action  as  the  reason  for  God's  rejection  of  them 
(verses  3, 10-13,  21).  His  mode  of  thought  may  be 
approximately  indicated  thus:  If  men  will  complain 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  115 

of  G-od  (ix.  14),  let  them  remember  that  he  is  free 
and  sovereign  in  all  his  acts  ;  if  they  will  excuse  them- 
selves (xi.  18  8<?.),  let  them  remember  that  they  have 
merited  by  their  neglect  and  sin  the  penalties  which 
they  have  received  at  his  hands.  These  two  truths 
Paul  asserts  with  equal  energy  and  plainness.  He 
adds  no  word  of  comment  upon  their  relation  to  each 
other.  His  thought  moved  out  in  the  two  assertions 
from  different  points  of  starting ;  he  betrays  no  con- 
sciousness of  any  conflict  or  contradiction  between 
them,  or  even  of  the  need  or  difficulty  of  harmonizing 
them. 

In  accordance  with  what  has  been  said,  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that  the  reasoning  of  chapter  ix.  is  an 
argumentum  ad  hominem  directed  against  the  tendency 
of  the  Jewish  people  to  complain  against  God's  pro- 
cedure because  of  their  misfortunes.  Paul  rebukes 
this  spirit  by  denying  a  priori  the  right  of  men  to 
reply  against  God.  Whatever  God  has  done  is  right ; 
man  may  not  question  it ;  this  is  an  axiom  with  Paul. 
The  comment  of  Weiss  upon  this  point  is  a  just  one : 

"If  Paul  [Rom.  ix.  18],  in  a  way  which  approaches  a 
predestination  from  arbitrary  will,  maintains  the  unfet- 
tered will  of  God  in  his  mercy,  this  is  in  opposition  to  the 
Jews,  who  supposed  that  through  their  acknowledged 
efforts  after  righteousness  [ix.  31 ;  x.  2]  they  had  a 
claim  on  salvation  above  that  of  the  heathen,  in  order  to 
establish  the  truth  that  the  mercy  of  God  involved  in 
election  does  not  depend  on  the  willing  or  the  running 
of  men  [ix.  16]."1 

*  Bib.  Theol.  §  88  6. 


116  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

The  aim  of  the  apostle  is  to  silence  Jewish  pride  and 
querulousness. 

It  may  thus  be  said  that  Paul's  argument  in  ix. 
15-29  is  of  the  nature  of  a  vindication  in  abstracto  of 
God's  right  to  act  without  reference  to  human  con- 
duct or  agency,  rather  than  an  assertion  that  God 
does  so.  I  cannot,  however,  agree  with  the  author 
just  cited  in  finding  the  transition  from  the  considera- 
tion of  the  abstract  right  to  the  actual  dealing  of  God 
with  men  clearly  marked  by  a  distinct  turn  in  the 
thought  at  verse  22.  The  §e  which  introduces  that 
verse  appears  to  me  to  be  continuative  rather  than 
adversative.  The  interpretation  of  Weiss  is  stated 
thus :  — 

"  The  apostle  vindicates  for  God  the  absolute  right  to 
do  this  (that  is,  to '  prepare  one  for  salvation  and  the  other 
for  destruction '),  just  as  the  potter  in  the  simile  has  the 
absolute  right  out  of  the  same  lump  to  form  vessels  to  an 
honorable  and  a  dishonorable  use  [verses  20,  21].  On 
the  contrary,  when  he  comes  to  speak  of  the  actual  at- 
tainment of  salvation,  by  means  of  a  Se  he  puts  the  actual 
dealings  of  God  at  present  in  express  contrast  with  the 
former  right  vindicated  for  God  in  abstracto  [verse  22]."  l 

This  interpretation,  which  is  elaborately  defended 
by  Tholuck  also,  encounters  the  following  objections : 
(a)  It  makes  too  much  depend  upon  the  particle 
Se;  if  such  a  transition  in  thought  as  is  supposed 
occurred  at  verse  22,  it  would  need  to  have  been  more 

1  Bib.  Theol.  §  88  b. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  117 

plainly  marked,  as  by  the  strong  adversative  d\\d. 
(5)  The  contents  of  verse  22  do  not  accord  with  the 
supposition  that  the  apostle  has  now  entered  upon 
a  distinctly  contrasted  line  of  thought.  The  terms 
of  the  previous  figure  (aieevr)  0/9777?  KaTrjprio-fJLeva) 
are  here  preserved,  and  the  forbearance  implied  in 
tfveytcev  is  presented  only  as  a  delay  of  the  punish- 
ment which  is  destined  for  the  vessels  which  have 
been  prepared  for  destruction,  which  intervenes  in 
order  that  God  may  reveal  his  mercy  upon  the  cncevr) 
eXeoy?.  Verses  22  and  23  are  thus  the  further  devel- 
opment and  application  of  the  simile  of  the  clay  in 
the  hands  of  the  potter  which  in  verses  19  and  20  is 
employed  to  silence  human  replies  against  God.  They 
are  a  part  of  the  proof  that  God's  action  must  remain 
unchallenged  alike  in  his  exercise  of  mercy  and  in  the 
act  of  hardening ;  in  his  delay  of  punishment  for  the 
"  vessels  of  wrath,"  and  in  his  exhibitions  of  grace  to 
the  "  vessels  of  mercy  which  he  prepared  for  glory." 
The  consistent  carrying  out  of  the  figure  seems  to  re- 
quire the  sense  given  in  Meyer's  paraphrase  (in  loco) : 

"  But  if  God,  notwithstanding  that  his  holy  will  dis- 
poses him  not  to  leave  unmanifested  his  wrath  and  his 
power,  but  practically  to  make  them  known,  has  never- 
theless hitherto,  full  of  long-suffering,  endured  such  as 
are  objects  of  his  wrath,  and  spared  them  from  destruc- 
tion, to  incur  which  they  are  nevertheless  constituted  and 
fitted  like  a  vessel  by  the  potter,  —  endured  them  and 
spared  them,  not  merely  as  a  proof  of  such  great  long- 
suffering  towards  them,  but  also  with  the  purpose  in  view 


118  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

of  making  known  during  the  period  of  this  forbearance 
the  fulness  of  his  glorious  perfection  in  respect  to  such 
as  are  objects  of  his  mercy,  whom  he,  as  the  potter  fash- 
ions a  vessel,  has  prepared  beforehand  and  put  in  order 
for  eternal  glory,  —  how  in  presence  of  that  self-denying 
long-suffering  of  God  towards  vessels  of  wrath,  and  in 
presence  of  this  gracious  purpose,  which  he  withal  at  the 
same  time  cherishes  towards  the  vessels  of  mercy,  must 
any  desire  to  dispute  with  God  completely  depart  from 
thee ! " 

The  only  contrast  at  verse  22,  then,  is  that  between 
his  consummating  the  work  of  destruction  at  once  and 
delaying  it  for  the  sake  of  showing  favor  meanwhile 
to  the  vessels  of  mercy,  not  the  contrast  between  his 
right  to  deal  with  men  as  the  potter  with  the  clay, 
and  his  gracious  renunciation  of  that  mode  of  dealing 
with  them  in  actual  fact. 

The  interpreter  cannot,  in  my  judgment,  evade 
Paul's  strict  doctrine  of  predestination  in  this  chapter 
by  any  legitimate  application  of  exegesis.  Taken  by 
itself,  the  passage  —  verses  19-23  —  is  a  most  rigid 
statement  of  God's  absolute  right  to  exercise  mercy 
toward  some  and  not  toward  others,  whom  he  may 
harden  if  he  will  in  order  to  make  upon  them  an  ex- 
hibition of  his  power  and  wrath.  Theology  is  at  lib- 
erty to  make  such  use  of  this  fact  as  it  may  deem  fit 
and  justifiable.  It  should,  however,  be  remembered 
that  this  passage  is  not  only  an  argumentum  ad 
hominem  directed  against  the  Jews,  but  that  it  is 
only  a  single  part  or  phase  of  Paul's  treatment  of 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  119 

their  fall.  The  motive  of  the  passage  is  to  assert  the 
absolute  freedom  of  God  in  dealing  with  men.  It  is 
always  competent  for  philosophical  theology  to  raise 
such  questions  as  these  :  What  will  God,  in  the  exer- 
cise of  this  freedom,  be  led  by  his  inherent  ethical 
nature  actually  to  do  in  his  treatment  of  mankind  ? 
When  God  is  spoken  of  as  fitting  men  for  destruc- 
tion, how  is  that  process  accomplished  ?  How  was  it 
actually  accomplished  in  the  case  of  the  Jews  as 
shown  by  chapter  x.  ?  If  the  end  of  this  hardening 
is  the  revelation  of  God's  wrath,  is  that  the  only  end  ? 
Is  the  manifestation  of  God's  wrath  in  punishment  an 
end  in  itself,  or  is  there,  inseparably  associated  with 
it,  the  vindication  of  the  holy  nature  of  God  and 
of  the  moral  order  of  the  universe  against  sin  ?  Can 
the  right  of  God  to  do  as  he  will,  which  is  asserted, 
be  without  reference  to  the  conditions  which  belong, 
in  God's  constitution  of  the  universe,  to  the  reward  of 
well-doing  and  to  the  punishment  of  evil-doing,  as 
well  as  independent  of  the  efficient  or  determining 
agency  of  man  ?  These  and  many  kindred  questions 
are  not  covered  by  the  statements  of  chapter  ix.,  and 
no  exegesis  of  that  passage  can  decide  them,  on  any 
view  that  may  be  taken  of  the  normative  character  of 
the  apostle's  arguments  in  such  fields  of  thought.1 

Similar  remarks  apply  to  Rom.  viii.  29,  30,  where 
the  salvation  of  believers  is  traced  from  the  fore- 
knowledge of  God  onward,  through  foreordination, 

1  The  general  remarks  of  Meyer  appended  to  his  commentary 
on  chapter  ix.  are  especially  commended. 


120       THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

calling,  and  justification  to  glorification.  Here  the 
practical  motive  of  the  apostle  is  to  show  that  the 
whole  plan  and  purpose  of  God  are,  as  it  were,  pledged 
to  the  Christian.  What  believers  are  and  shall  be, 
they  were  in  the  eternal  purpose  of  God.  The  thought 
moves  throughout  along  the  line  of  the  divine  effi- 
ciency in  salvation.  Human  conditions  for  its  recep- 
tion, human  consent  and  effort  for  the  completion  of 
its  process,  are,  for  the  apostle's  particular  purpose 
here,  as  little  recognized  as  they  are  in  general  ex- 
cluded. God  foreknows  and  predetermines  those  who 
are  to  be  saved ;  that  he  also  therewith  foreknows  and 
predetermines  the  conditions  by  which  men  become 
saved,  and  so  comprises  in  the  scope  of  his  eternal 
purpose  the  free  consent  and  action  of  men  in  accept- 
ing salvation,  is  in  no  way  excluded  by  exegetical 
considerations,  and  is  rendered  an  absolutely  neces- 
sary supposition  by  Paul's  teaching  as  a  whole,  as 
well  as  by  any  independent  rational  construction  of 
Christian  doctrine. 

This  class  of  statements  aptly  illustrates  a  notice- 
able characteristic  of  Paul's  mind.  He  has  none  of 
that  caution  and  timorousness  which  often  lead 
writers  perpetually  to  trim  and  qualify  for  fear  of 
being  misunderstood.  He  lays  full  stress  upon  the 
argument  in  hand  in  its  bearing  upon  the  idea  to  be 
maintained,  without  concerning  himself  about  its  ad- 
justment with  other  truths,  and  without  balancing 
over  against  it  the  statements  which  form  its  doc- 
trinal or  logical  counterpart.  The  result  is  that 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD  121 

those  who  employ  one-sided  methods  of  handling  his 
statements,  and  are  dominated  by  some  dogmatic 
prepossession,  easily  find  their  desired  proof-texts  in 
his  epistles ;  while  his  critics  as  readily  point  out 
numerous  contradictions  in  them.  Both  classes  of 
interpreters  work  by  the  same  methods, — the  one 
emphasizing  one  class  of  statements  only,  the  other 
emphasizing  both  in  such  a  way  as  to  draw  from  them 
opposing  results.  A  just  treatment  of  his  language 
touching  any  given  subject  as  a  whole  requires,  not  a 
paring  down  of  one  class  of  statements  to  fit  them  to 
another,  but  a  consideration  of  his  method  of  thought 
in  general,  and  of  his  immediate  point  of  view  and 
special  purpose  in  the  passages  under  examination. 

In  the  apostle's  expressions  concerning  God,  then, 
we  find  pre-eminent  these  ideas  :  God  has  revealed 
himself  to  all  men  in  some  method,  —  (a)  in  nature, 
(£»)  in  providence  and  history,  (<?)  in  conscience,  and 
with  still  greater  fulness  (c?)  in  the  history  and  life 
of  the  Jewish  people,  but  now  in  the  later  ages  (<?) 
most  perfectly  in  Christ.  God  is  gracious  and  right- 
eous in  all  his  action.  His  gift  of  Christ  for  the 
world's  salvation  sprang  from  the  divine  love  (Gal. 
ii.  20;  Rom.  v.  8;  Eph.  ii.  4),  which  is  thus  the  mo- 
tive of  redemption ;  and  the  work  is  so  effected  as  to 
completely  vindicate  the  divine  righteousness  and  dis- 
approval of  sin,  while  providing  for  its  forgiveness. 
This  gracious  revelation  and  redemption  God  alone 
originates,  carries  forward,  and  completes.  Man's 
part  is  the  acceptance  of  its  benefits.  It  lay  in  the 


122  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

heart  of  God  from  eternity,  and  is  effected  by  his 
sovereign  mercy.  With  no  word  of  boasting  may 
man  appear  in  the  divine  presence.  Through  no  obe- 
dience or  achievement  of  his,  but  through  divine 
grace  alone,  humbly  accepted  in  faith,  does  he  enter 
into  peace  with  God ;  but  having  been  made  the  ob- 
ject of  that  love,  and  having  entered  into  the  for- 
giveness which  it  secures,  he  is  an  ally  of  God,  and 
may  defy  opposing  powers,  confident  that  no  force  or 
creature  can  separate  him  from  God's  all-conquering 
love. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  DOCTRINE   OF   SIN 

THE  apostle's  teaching  centers  in  the  doctrine  of 
salvation ;  but  as  preparing  the  way  for  the  exposition 
of  it,  he  treats  of  the  fact  of  human  sinfulness.  This 
is  the  order  of  thought  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
and  represents  the  logical  relation  of  the  two  doc- 
trines. A  systematic  exhibition  of  Paul's  teaching 
regarding  sin  requires  us  to  treat  first  of  its  origin, 
although  that  topic  is  presented  in  a  subordinate  way 
and  quite  incidentally  by  the  apostle  himself.  It  is 
introduced  only  as  an  illustration  in  Rom.  v.  12-21, 
and  not  from  set  purpose  to  teach  the  method  of  sin's 
entrance  into  the  world.  The  passage  has,  however, 
the  greatest  importance  and  interest,  not  only  because 
it  stands  alone  in  its  treatment  of  the  origin  of  sin, 
but  because  it  presents  to  us  most  strikingly  some  of 
Paul's  characteristic  modes  of  thought. 

The  purpose  of  the  parallel  which  the  passage  draws 
between  Adam  and  Christ  is  to  emphasize  the  great- 
ness of  God's  redeeming  grace.  The  peculiarity  of 
the  construction  is  that  after  the  illustrative  member 
of  the  comparison  —  that  is,  Adam  and  his  sin  —  is 


124  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

introduced  (verse  12),  a  digression  whose  purpose  is 
to  illustrate  the  universality  of  sin  occurs  (verses  13, 
14) ;  and  only  in  verse  15  is  the  other  and  chief  member 
of  the  comparison  —  that  is,  Christ  and  his  grace  — 
brought  forward,  where  it  is  stated  that  as  by  the 
trespass  of  one  the  many  died,  so  and  in  yet  greater 
measure  did  God's  grace  through  Christ  abound  unto 
the  many.  Here,  then,  is  introduced  the  full  com- 
parison, but  with  the  added  element  of  a  special  em- 
phasis (TToXXcS  /taXXoi/)  upon  the  exceeding  greatness 
of  the  grace  of  God.  In  verse  19  the  comparison, 
which  has  been  deferred  by  a  long  parenthesis  and 
complicated  with  an  emphasizing  of  the  grace  side  of 
the  parallel,  is  simply  stated :  "  For  as  through  the 
one  man's  disobedience  the  many  were  made  sinners, 
even  so  through  the  obedience  of  the  one  shall  the 
many  be  made  righteous."  This  was  what  Paul 
began  to  say  in  verse  12  where  he  was  diverted  by 
parenthetic  explanations.  This  verse  is  therefore  the 
nerve  of  the  passage  taken  as  a  whole,  and  clearly 
reveals  its  true  purport  and  chief  intention. 

We  are  now  required  to  fix  attention  upon  the 
member  of  this  comparison  which  is  introduced  in 
illustration ;  namely,  the  sin  of  Adam  in  its  relation 
to  the  sin  of  the  race.  The  argument  which  rests 
upon  the  causal  relation  of  Adam's  sin  to  sin  in  gen- 
eral has  the  following  presuppositions :  (1)  Sin  in 
general,  sin  as  a  principle  or  world-ruling  power,  had 
its  origin  in  the  transgression  of  Adam.  This  point 
the  apostle  assumes  without  argument.  It  was  with 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  125 

him  a  well-settled  belief.  It  was  beyond  question  the 
current  opinion  in  the  later  Judaism,  and  was  held  by 
the  apostle  in  common  with  the  rabbinic  theology. 
Tholuck  adduces  the  following  striking  rabbinical 
parallels:1 — 

"  The  Targum  on  the  passage,  '  God  made  man  upright' 
(Eccles.  vii.  29) ,  reads,  '  But  the  serpent  and  the  woman 
led  him  astray,  and  caused  death  to  be  inflicted  upon  him 
and  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of  earth.'  The  Targum  on 
Ruth  iv.  22  says :  '  Jesse  lived  many  days,  until  the 
counsel  which  the  serpent  gave  Eve  was  called  to  mind 
before  God ;  on  account  of  this  counsel  all  men  became 
subject  to  death.' " 

Other  examples  are:  — 

"If  Adam  and  Eve  had  not  sinned,  their  descendants 
would  not  have  been  infected  with  the  disposition  to  sin, 
and  their  form  would  have  remained  perfect  like  that  of 
angels,  as  the  curses  [upon  them]  show,  and  they  would 
have  continued  eternally  living  and  unchanged  in  the 
world.  .  •  .  Although  all  was  created  perfect,  yet  as 
soon  as  the  first  man  sinned,  everything  became  per- 
verted and  will  no  more  return  to  order  until  the  Messiah 
comes.  .  .  .  With  the  same  sin  with  which  Adam  sinned, 
sinned  the  whole  world,  for  he  was  the  whole  world.  .  .  . 
As  the  first  man  was  the  one  in  [committing]  sin,  so  shall 
the  Messiah  be  the  one  in  extinguishing  sin.  .  .  .  Adam 
opened,  through  his  fall,  a  source  of  impurity,  so  that 
impurity  and  poison  spread  themselves  throughout  the 
whole  world." 

1  Auslegung  d.  Brief es  an  die  Romer,  in  loco. 


126  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

The  view  under  consideration,  in  the  form  in  which 
it  is  here  expressed,  could  have  been  derived  from  the 
Old  Testament  only  by  inference.  The  transgression 
of  Adam  is  there  treated  as  a  beginning  of  sin,  but 
all  other  sin  is  not  referred  to  it  as  its  cause  and 
ground. 

(2)  A  second  presupposition  is  that  death  is  the 
consequence  of  sin.     This  is  the  teaching  of  the  Old 
Testament ;  but  the  death  of  all  is  never  there  directly 
referred  to  the  sin  of  Adam  as  its  cause.     It  is  rather 
the  consequence  of  personal  sin.     The  universal  reign 
of  death  is,  however,  traced  to  the  sin  of  the  first 
parents  in  apocryphal  writings,  as  in  Wisdom  ii.  24 : 
"  For  God  created  man  for  immortality,  and  made 
him  to  be  an  image  of  his  own  being ;  but  through 
envy  of  the  Devil  came  death  into  the  world  and  they 
that  are  of   his   part   [ot  T^<?  eiceivov  ftepiSos  oi/res] 
experience  it,"  and  more  explicitly  in  Ecclus.  xxv.  24 : 
"  Of  the  woman  came  the  beginning  of  sin,  and  through 
her  we  all  die."     Death  to  the  Jewish  mind  was  a 
descent  to  the  gloomy  shades  of  Sheol,  and  was  one  of 
the  greatest  of  evils.      From  its   associations  it  is 
therefore  easy  to  see  why  it  should  have  been  uni- 
formly represented  as  the  penalty  of  sin. 

(3)  A  third  assumption  of  the  argument  is  that 
Adam  and  Christ  stand  in  analogous  relations  to  the 
race,  —  the  former  to  the  race  of  men  considered  as 
sinners  and  in  need  of  redemption,  the  latter  to  the 
race  considered  as  subjects  of  that  redemption.    Christ 
is  the  second  Adam  (1  Cor.  xv.  45,  47) ;  that  is,  the 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  127 

one  who  rescues  man  from  the  sinful  course  which  was 
initiated  by  the  fall  of  the  first  Adam.  He  is  the  head 
of  spiritual  humanity  as  Adam  was  the  head  of 
natural  humanity.  The  first  two  presuppositions  are 
found  in  verse  12;  the  third  underlies  the  whole 
passage. 

The  unfinished  protasis  of  verse  12,  "As  through 
one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin," 
would  naturally  have  been  completed  thus :  "  So 
through  one  man  [Jesus  Christ]  did  righteousness  enter 
into  the  world,  and  life  by  righteousness  "  (cf.  verses 
15,  19).  But  at  the  mention  of  death  as  sin's  conse- 
quence, the  apostle  pauses  to  emphasize  the  universality 
of  death  and  sin.  The  word  "  so  "  (oimw?)  refers  to 
the  causal  connection  between  death  and  sin  which  is 
assumed.  The  thought  is,  "  And  so  "  —  that  is,  since 
death  is  sin's  consequence — "death became  universal, 
because  sin  was  universal."  The  order  of  thought 
then  is,  (a)  Sin  entered  the  world  by  Adam's  tres- 
pass ;  (5)  death,  sin's  invariable  penalty,  followed  ; 
(c)  in  accordance  with  this  connection  between  sin 
and  death,  death  became  universal,  (d)  because  all 
sinned. 

The  last  point  is  the  one  over  whose  meaning  in- 
terpreters are  most  divided.  Several  prior  considera- 
tions will  furnish  the  right  method  of  approach  to  its 
interpretation.  These  are,  (a)  the  apostle's  objective, 
semi-personal  conception  of  sin  and  death.  They  are 
principles  or  powers  to  which  peculiar  actions  or  en- 
ergies are  ascribed.  Sin  entered  (elcrfj\6ev)  the  world, 


128  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

and  death  passed  through  upon  all  men  (ei*9 
av0p(i>7rov<;  6  Odvaros  Bifj\dev).  During  the  period 
from  Adam  to  Moses  sin  was  in  the  world  (a^iapria 
TJV  ev  leoa-po),  verse  13)  as  an  objective  and  conquering 
power,  and  death  was  reigning  in  triumph  over  men 
(efiaa-iXevaev  6  Qdvaros,  verse  14,  cf.  17).  (6)  The 
whole  passage  deals  in  the  abstract  with  the  relation 
of  Christ  to  salvation  and  with  that  of  Adam  to  sin, 
and  not  in  the  concrete  with  personal  acts.  In  the 
chief  member  of  the  comparison  which  is  developed 
in  verses  15-19,  where  the  superior  power  and  abun- 
dance of  grace  in  Christ  as  compared  with  that  of  sin 
in  Adam  are  repeatedly  emphasized  (see  verses  15-17), 
no  allusion  is  made  to  the  personal  acts  by  which 
believers  appropriate  the  righteousness  which  God's 
grace  in  Christ  provides.  The  relation  of  Christ  to 
the  fact  of  salvation  is  the  single  thought,  and  that 
one  idea  determines  the  treatment  throughout.  The 
view  that  in  the  correlative  case  Paul  thinks  only  of 
Adam's  relation  to  sin  in  general,  without  reference  to 
the  acts  of  individuals,  would  have  the  advantage  of 
preserving  the  consistency  of  the  comparison  in  an  im- 
portant particular,  and  of  harmonizing  both  members 
of  the  comparison  with  the  same  fundamental  point  of 
view,  (c)  The  practical  religious  motive  for  urging 
the  universality  of  sin  and  death  is  to  magnify  the 
universal  destination  of  the  grace  of  God  in  salvation. 
As  Christ's  relation  to  that  salvation  is  the  only  point 
under  consideration  in  the  chief  member  of  the  com. 
parison,  so  the  relation  of  Adam  to  human  sin  is  the 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  129 

only  point  of  importance  for  the  purposes  of  the 
illustration.  It  is  the  universality  of  sin  and  death 
as  connected  with  Adam's  transgression  which  serves 
to  illustrate  the  universality  of  the  purpose  of  grace 
in  Christ. 

In  accordance  with  these  suggestions  regarding  the 
form  and  scope  of  the  passage  as  a  whole,  and  espe- 
cially in  view  of  the  peculiarities  of  Paul's  modes  of 
thought  which  were  described  in  a  former  chapter,  I 
hold  that  the  much-disputed  phrase,  e</>'  &>  Trai/re? 
rj/j,apTovj  means  :  All  sinned  when  Adam  sinned ;  all 
sinned  in  and  with  his  sin.  My  reasons,  stated  in 
detail,  for  this  interpretation  are  as  follows  :  (a)  The 
point  of  the  illustration  drawn  from  Adam  is  found 
in  referring  all  sin  to  his  transgression  as  its  source. 
With  this  thought  the  apostle  begins  his  comparison, 
"  As  through  one  man  sin  entered,"  etc.  (verse  12),  and 
wherever  he  returns  to  the  same  idea,  as  he  does  in 
verses  15-19,  the  emphasis  is  in  each  case  laid  upon 
Adam's  sin  as  the  cause  of  sin  in  general  and  of  the 
reign  of  death.  If  in  e<f>'  o5  Trai/re?  ijfiaprov  he  means 
individual  and  personal  sin,  he  then  gives  in  this 
phrase  a  different  reason  for  the  universal  reign  of 
death  from  that  given  elsewhere  throughout  the  pas- 
sage, and  a  reason  which  the  nature  of  his  argument 
did  not  at  all  require.  It  is  by  the  trespass  of  the 
one  (Adam)  that  the  many  died,  as  it  is  by  the  act 
of  righteousness  of  the  one  (Christ)  that  the  many 
live.  The  introduction  of  personal  sin  as  the  cause 
of  the  universality  of  death  is  as  little  required  as 

9 


130  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  introduction  of  the  personal  faith  of  believers 
as  a  reason  for  the  salvation  of  the  many.  Of  the 
latter  there  is  no  hint  in  the  whole  section ;  the 
presumption  is  against  the  introduction  of  the 
former.  Both  are  equally  aside  from  the  purpose 
of  the  argument. 

(5)  The  force  of  the  aorist  ^fiaprov  most  naturally 
favors  this  view.  I  grant  that  it  is  possible  to  lay  too 
great  weight  upon  the  force  of  the  tense  in  itself  con- 
sidered. The  aorist  denotes  a  definite  past  action, 
but  in  itself  determines  nothing  as  to  the  time  of  that 
action  relatively  to  other  events.  It  may  therefore 
refer  to  a  general  or  universal  course  of  action  in 
past  time  for  the  expression  of  which  our  idiom  uses 
the  perfect  tense.  Such  appears  to  be  its  force  in 
Rom.  iii.  23  :  Trdvres  yap  rjfiaprov  teal  va-repovvrai  rfj<; 
SO^T/?  rov  Oeov.  It  is  when  the  term  rjfiaprov  is  com- 
pared with  a  most  characteristic  use  of  the  aorist  in 
other  passages  to  denote  an  act  of  individuals  con- 
ceived of  as  contemporaneous  with  and  included  in 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus,  that  the  full  force 
of  this  reason  appears.  These  expressions  have  been 
cited  for  a  general  purpose ;  they  should  here  be 
brought  into  comparison  with  the  phrase  under  con- 
sideration. They  are  :  2  Cor.  v.  15,  Kpivavra?  TOVTO, 
ore  et<?  vTrep  irdvrwv  drreOavev '  dpa  ol  iravre^i  aireOavov, 
"  Because  we  thus  judge  that  one  died  for  all,  there- 
fore all  died ; "  that  is,  all  died  (ethically)  to  sin  in 
and  with  the  death  of  Christ  upon  the  cross.  The 
death  of  individuals  in  a  figurative  sense  is  distinctly 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  131 

identified  in  time  with  the  death  of  Christ.1  Other 
passages  containing  the  same  form  of  thought  are : 
Col.  iii.  1,  el  ovv  arvwr)yepd/r}T€  T«O  Xpi<rT<p,  TO,  avw  tyjTelre, 
"  If  ye  were  raised  with  Christ ; "  that  is,  were  raised 
to  new  spiritual  life  when  he  rose,  etc.  Compare  the 
aorists  in  the  kindred  expressions,  Col.  ii.  20 ;  iii.  3  ; 
Rom.  vi.  6.  As  in  all  these  cases  where  the  salvation 
(ethical  death  and  resurrection)  of  believers  is  carried 
back  in  thought  and  mystically  identified  with  its 
cause  and  ground  in  Christ's  death  and  resurrection, 
so  in  this  passage,  which  is  the  logical  counterpart  of 
the  representations  just  quoted,  is  it  most  natural  to 
refer  the  aorist  ijpapTov  back  to  the  act  of  Adam 
in  which  the  sinning  of  all  had  its  root,  and  with 
which  it  is  identified  in  the  same  way  as  the  be- 
liever's death  to  sin  is  identified  with  Christ's  death 
upon  the  cross.  This  analogy  in  the  two  represen- 
tations pertains  to  the  general  form  of  the  thought, 
and  should  not  be  pressed  beyond  the  purposes  for 
which  Paul  has  used  it.  These  considerations,  then, 
appear  to  point  strongly  to  the  interpretation  of  Ben- 
gel  :  "  Non  agitur  de  peccato  singulorum  proprio. 
Omnes  peccarunt,  Adamo  peccante,  sicut  omnes  mortui 
sunt,  salutariter,  moriente  Christo  (2  Cor.  v.  15)."  In 
this  connection  I  would  refer  the  reader  to  what  I 

1  Cf.  Meyer  in  loco  :  "  In  this  death  of  the  one  the  death  of 
all  was  accomplished,  the  ethical  death,  namely,  in  so  far  as  in  the 
case  of  all,  the  ceasing  of  the  fleshly  life,  of  the  life  in  sin  (which 
ethical  dying  sets  in  subjectively  through  fellowship  of  faith  with 
the  death  of  Christ),  is  objectively,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  contained 
in  the  death  of  the  Lord." 


132       THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

have  written  in  an  earlier  chapter  (pp.  36-40)  upon 
the  peculiar  mode  of  thought  of  which  the  sinning  of 
all  in  the  sin  of  Adam  appears  to  be  an  illustration. 

(c)  The  view  that  ijfj,apTov  refers  to  the  sin  of  the 
race  in  Adam  harmonizes  best  with  the  apostle's  con- 
ception of  apapTia.     It  is  an  abstract  term  denoting 
sin  as  a  whole,  conceived  as  a  principle  or  diffusive 
power  which  spreads  itself  abroad.    When  the  apostle 
wrote  77  a/Aapria  ei<>  TOV  Koafiov  eicrrj\0evt  he  did  not 
refer  to  the  commission  of  individual  and  personal 
sins,  but  to  the  entrance  of  sin  as  a  power  or  non- 
personal  principle  in  which  all  partake.     It  is  more 
accordant  with  this  conception  to   suppose  that  in 
Trai/res  rifiaprov  he  introduces  no  new  reason  or  dif- 
ferent representation.   All  sinned  when  sin  entered  the 
world  in  the  transgression  of  Adam.     That  this  is 
the  interpretation  which   speculative   theology,  with 
little  regard  to  exegesis,  has  so  long  espoused,  should 
not  be  regarded  as  an  exegetical  objection  to  it,  as 
on  the  other  hand  philosophical  difficulties  with  the 
idea  thus  derived  should  not  be  allowed  a  determining 
weight  in  overbearing  the  natural  and  characteristic 
force  of  the  apostle's  words.     . 

(d)  Haz/re?  fj/jLaprov  gives  the  reason  for  the  abso- 
lutely universal  spread  of  death.     If  it  means  "  per- 
sonally sinned,"  the  statement  would  not  be  true.     It 
could  not  be  said  that  all  died  because  all  consciously 
and  individually  sinned,  because  millions  of  infants 
have  died  who  have  not  so  sinned.     It  may  be  said  in 
reply  that  the  case  of  infants  did  not  occur  to  Paul's 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  133 

mind  as  constituting  an  exception  to  his  statement. 
But  could  such  an  obvious  and  fatal  exception  escape 
his  notice  ?  He  is  accounting  for  the  universality  of 
death.  The  reason  he  gives  is  irdvre^  rj^aprov.  The 
term  Trdvres  here  must  be  coextensive  with  irdvra^  of 
the  previous  clause,  else  iravres  rj^aprov  gives  no  valid 
reason  for  et?  irdvras  dvOpooTrovs  6  Qdvaro?  SirjXdev. 
But  it  is  not  coextensive  if  -jrdvres  rj^aprov  means 
"  personally  sinned ; "  and  the  argument  breaks  down. 
All  sinned  in  Adam's  sin,  and  therefore,  apart  from 
personal  sin,  all  die. 

Such  is  the  interpretation  to  which  we  are  led  by 
exegetical  considerations.  It  may  not  accord  with 
current  modes  of  thought;  it  accords  with  those  of 
the  apostle.  It  is  an  example  of  his  mystical  and 
objective  handling  of  such  conceptions  as  that  of 
sin.  With  the  dogmatic  treatment  of  the  passage  we 
are  not  concerned  beyond  pointing  out  its  relation 
to  Paul's  own  scheme  of  doctrine.  The  peculiar  and 
characteristically  Pauline  form  of  thought  which  the 
passage  presents  has  been  appropriated  by  a  realism 
very  different  from  Paul's,  and  thus  the  passage  was 
made  to  do  service  as  a  philosophical  theorem.  This 
use  of  the  passage  was  facilitated  by  the  translation 
in  the  Vulgate  version  of  e<f>  co  by  in  quo,  so  that  the 
terms  of  the  apostle  furnished  a  most  striking  parallel 
to  the  proposition  that  all  sinned  in  Adam.  But  even 
without  this  exegetical  artifice  the  words  easily  lent 
themselves  to  this  form  of  speculation.  Their  natural 
meaning  was,  All  sinned  when  Adam  sinned ;  and 


134  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

that  statement  was  the  theorem  to  be  proved  on  the 
principle  that  all  individuals  were  seminally  in  Adam, 
and  actually  participated  in  his  sin.  This  is  very  con- 
vincing so  long  as  one  assumes  that  the  philosophical 
realism  which  emanated  from  Plato  and  was  elabo- 
rately applied  to  theology  by  Augustine,  is  the  same  as 
the  mystical  realism  of  Paul ;  that  is,  so  long  as  one 
does  not  go  behind  the  form  of  the  apostle's  words. 
But  when  this  is  done,  the  resemblance  turns  out  to  be 
a  merely  formal  one.  With  no  attention  to  the  pecu- 
liarities of  Paul's  thought,  and  assuming  the  identity 
of  the  two  systems  because  one  of  his  phrases  has  a 
sound  which  accords  with  one  of  its  favorite  maxims, 
philosophical  realism  has  introduced  its  whole  scheme 
into  Christian  theology  under  cover  of  this  one  formal 
resemblance,  to  the  entire  neglect  of  the  same  form  of 
thought  where  it  appears  in  several  striking  instances 
in  another  connection.  It  has  filled  this  phrase  with 
its  own  content,  and  turned  it  to  use  as  a  hard  and 
fast  theological  formula  asserting  the  actual  presence 
of  all  men  in  Adam  and  their  participation  in  his  act ; 
while  kindred  phrases  —  which  rest  upon  precisely 
the  same  mode  of  thought,  and  identify  believers 
with  Christ  in  his  death,  just  as  this  identifies  sin- 
ners with  Adam  in  his  sin  —  are  passed  by,  as  mere 
figures  of  speech.  It  is  a  curious  example  of  the 
formal  coincidence  of  exegesis  and  dogma,  —  a 
coincidence,  however,  which  biblical  theology,  by 
penetrating  beneath  the  external  resemblances  to 
the  wholly  different  underlying  conceptions  of  Paul 


THE  DOCTRINE  OP  SIN  135 

and  of  philosophical  realism,  shows  to  be  no  real 
coincidence  in  idea. 

It  is  worth  while  to  point  out  so  noteworthy  an  ex- 
ample of  the  association  of  speculative  opinions  with 
biblical  phrases  where  there  is  no  real  kinship  of  idea 
between  them,  as  a  justification  of  the  science  of  bib- 
lical theology,  upon  whose  methods  speculative  the- 
ology so  naturally  looks  with  scanty  favor.  Until 
something  more  than  verbal  exegesis  becomes  wide- 
spread, and  we  have  a  careful  and  minute  study  of 
the  thoughts  of  the  biblical  writers  in  their  own  light, 

—  a  study  which  penetrates  to  that  which  is  charac- 
teristic in  both  form  and  matter,  —  we  shall  continue 
to  see  their  words  displayed  as  the  mottoes  of  specula- 
tions and  theories  entirely  foreign  to  their  meaning, 
and  applied  to  conceptions  widely  remote  from  their 
thoughts.     The  more  obvious  misuses  of  this  kind 

—  such  as  the  employment  of  scriptural  statements 
as  definitions  of  scientific  truth  —  are  now,  though 
only  within  recent  years,  widely  discredited.     It  is 
now  generally  conceded  that  scientific   conceptions 
are   not   to   be   expected   in   Scripture.      A   similar 
concession  must  at  length  be  made  in  regard  to  philo- 
sophical speculations  which  grew  up  on  a  wholly  dif- 
ferent soil  from  that  on  which  the  conceptions  of  the 
apostles  were  matured,  and  which  are  not  at  all  ger- 
mane to  their  modes  of  thought. 

In  what  sense,  then,  according  to  Paul's  character- 
istic modes  of  thought,  does  he  mean  that  all  men 
sinned  when  Adam  sinned  ?  They  sinned  when  Adam 


136  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ginned  in  the  same  sense  in  which  believers  were 
crucified  to  the  world  and  died  unto  sin  when  Christ 
died  upon  the  cross.  The  believer's  renewal  is  con- 
ceived of  as  wrought  in  advance  by  those  acts  and 
experiences  of  Christ  in  which  it  has  its  ground. 
As  the  consequences  of  his  vicarious  sufferings  are 
traced  back  to  their  cause,  so  are  the  consequences 
which  flowed  from  the  beginning  of  sin  in  Adam 
traced  back  to  that  original  fount  of  evil  and  identi- 
fied with  it ;  but  the  latter  statement  should  no  more 
be  treated  as  a  rigid  logical  formula  than  the  former, 
its  counterpart.  All  that  doctrinal  theology  de- 
rives from  the  one  is  the  causal  relation  of  Christ's 
work  to  salvation;  it  should  by  parity  of  reasoning 
derive  from  the  other  the  thought  of  the  sin  of  Adam 
as  the  initiation  and  cause  of  all  sin.  As  righteous- 
ness flowed  from  Christ,  so  did  sin  from  Adam.  The 
former  initiated  the  order  of  righteousness  ;  the  latter 
the  disorder  of  sin.  As  all  who  by  faith  enter  the 
spiritual  order  of  Christ  receive  from  him  the  gracious 
gift  of  reconciliation  and  life,  so  all  by  their  race- 
connection  have  received  from  the  natural  head  of 
the  race  a  taint  of  nature,  a  bent  or  bias  toward  sin, 
so  that  in  principle  the  sinfulness  of  all  may  be  said 
to  be  included  in  the  sin  of  Adam.  It  may  even  be 
said,  in  harmony  with  Pauline  conceptions,  that  all 
human  nature  was  in  Adam  and  that  he  was  the 
race,  if  it  be  meant  in  accord  with  the  principles  of 
heredity  and  not  in  the  sense  of  realism,  which  makes 
human  nature  a  certain  quantum  of  being  and  treats 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  137 

descent  from  Adam  as  a  division   of   this   mass   of 
human  nature  into  parts.1 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  Paul  knows  nothing  of  a 
fall  of  Adam  from  a  state  of  purity,  but  rather  treats 
his  sin  as  the  product  of  a  germ  of  evil  or  the  out- 
come of  moral  weakness  within  him.2  Appeal  on 
behalf  of  this  view  is  made  to  1  Cor.  xv.  47,  where 
Adam  is  referred  to  as  6  Trpwros  avOpwiros  e/c  77)5 
XOIKOS.  But  the  subject  of  sin  is  not  there  under  con- 
sideration, and  ^oi/co?  only  designates  Adam  as  of 
earthly  origin  and  mortal.  This  expression  in  no  way 
involves  sin  or  moral  fault  in  Adam  previous  to  the 
transgression  to  which  Paul  refers,  but  fairly  taken, 
clearly  implies  a  certain  moral  indeterminateness  or 
weakness  as  opposed  to  tested  and  approved  charac- 
ter, and  also  —  contrary  to  the  common  assumption 
—  mortality.  Neither  the  Old  Testament  nor  the 
New  teaches  that  Adam  was  created  immortal,  but 
only  that  he  might  by  obedience  have  attained  to  im- 
mortality. It  is  not  asserted  that  Adam  became  mor- 
tal in  consequence  of  his  trespass,  but  only  that  he 
died ;  that  is,  failed  of  the  possible  goal  of  immortality. 
It  cannot  therefore  be  affirmed  that  had  not  Adam 
sinned  he  would  have  continued  forever  in  his  earthly 
life,  but  only  that  he  would  not  have  experienced 
death  with  the  pain,  anxiety,  and  decay  which  now 
attend  human  dissolution.  To  escape  the  bitter  expe- 
rience of  death,  and  to  be  in  some  way  transformed 

1  Cf.  Shedd,  Dogmatic  Theology,  ii.  77  sq. 

a  So  Usteri,  Paulin.  Lehrbegriff',  p.  28 ;  Baur,  Paulus,  ii.  268. 


138  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

into  a  higher  life,  was  the  reward  of  obedience  which 
both  Old  and  New  Testaments  assume  to  have  been 
set  before  him.  An  experience  corresponding  to 
death,  a  change,  a  transformation,  must  have  awaited 
him  as  an  avOpw-jros  ^oi'/co?,  but  not  death  in  the 
meaning  and  associations  with  which  long  ages  of 
sorrow  and  suffering  have  clothed  that  word. 

That  a  fall  of  Adam  is  meant  by  77  afiapria  ei? 
TOV  ic6<rnov  €Lo-f)\6evt  is  certain  from  the  fact  that 
a^iapria  denotes  sin  as  a  power  or  principle  which  on 
the  assumption  under  review  would  have  been  already 
in  the  world  before  Adam's  personal  transgression.1 
It  may  be  observed  in  passing  that  the  interpretation 
of  Paul's  words  which  ascribes  to  him,  not  the  idea  of 
a  fall,  but  that  of  a  development  of  a  germ  of  evil, 
present  in  him  from  the  first,  accords  with  certain 
philosophical  presuppositions  regarding  sin  as  inherent 
in  human  nature.  It  will  be  necessary  to  refer  to  it 
again  in  considering  Paul's  teaching  regarding  the 
nature  of  sin.  We  are  confident  that  Paul  does  not 
think  so  ill  of  human  nature  as  to  consider  it  essen- 
tially evil,  nor  so  lightly  of  sin  as  they  suppose  who 
ascribe  to  him  this  doctrine,  according  to  which  sin 
is  little  more  than  man's  native  moral  weakness,  the 
necessary  contrast  to  goodness  and  the  indispensable 
condition  of  its  development  in  all  finite  being. 

We  have  seen  that  the  origin  of  human  sin  is 
traced  by  the  apostle  to  Adam,  and  that  its  universal 

1  Cf.  Lechler,  Das  apos.  Zeitalter,  p.  300;  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol. 
§676. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  139 

sway  is  explained  by  the  organic  unity  of  the  race 
with  him.  It  remains  to  inquire  into  his  teaching 
concerning  the  nature  and  operation  of  this  despotic 
power  in  the  individual  and  in  society,  —  a  problem 
for  whose  solution  the  apostle  has  furnished  us  far 
more  abundant  data  than  for  the  determination  of 
his  view  of  the  origin  of  sin,  but  data  which  are  by 
no  means  easy  of  interpretation. 

Paul's  doctrine  of  human  sinfulness  cannot  be 
understood  without  determining  the  meaning  of  the 
term  "flesh"  (o-apf),with  which  he  constantly  asso- 
ciates sin,  and  which  he  regards  as  sin's  seat  and 
sphere  of  manifestation.  In  the  Old  Testament  the 
term  "  flesh  "  p^?)  is  frequently  used  to  denote  man's 
natural  creature-life  in  its  moral  weakness  and  sinful- 
ness,  while  "  spirit "  (nn)  denotes  that  God-given  ele- 
ment of  his  personality  which  is  akin  to  the  Divine 
Spirit.  Thus  the  terms  set  in  contrast  two  phases  of 
human  nature,  —  its  merely  natural  impulses  on  the 
one  side,  and  its  affinities  with  God  on  the  other. 
It  has  been  commonly  supposed  that  Paul  founds  his 
own  doctrine  upon  this  Old  Testament  basis.  Re- 
cently, however,  elaborate  attempts  have  been  made 
to  show  that  at  this  point  he  deserts  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ethical  dualism,  and  constructs  his  view  in 
accord  with  the  natural  and  essential  dualism  of  Hel- 
lenic philosophy,  in  which  the  body  was  regarded  as 
necessarily  evil  and  as  forming  an  antithesis  to  the 
higher  element  —  the  spirit  —  in  human  nature. 
Upon  this  explanation,  o-dpg  becomes  substantial!/ 


140  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 


equivalent  to  a-wfut  or  /ieX^.1  Upon  this  view  an  an- 
tinomy is  found  in  Paul's  account  of  the  origin  of  sin, 
since  its  beginning,  on  the  one  hand,  is  ascribed  to 
the  sin  of  Adam,  and  on  the  other,  is  made  to  be 
inherent  in  the  material  element  of  the  human  per- 
sonality. This  view  has  been  modified  by  Pfleiderer, 
in  a  work  more  recent  than  the  first  edition  of  Paulin- 
ismus?  and  the  ethical  meaning  of  <rdpj;  in  Paul's  doc- 
trine is  distinctly  admitted,  although  its  physical 
meaning  is  still  emphasized  as  the  basis  of  this  con- 
ception. In  the  view  of  this  writer  we  have  here,  as 
so  frequently  in  Paul's  doctrines,  a  combination  of 
Old  Testament  or  rabbinic  with  Hellenic  or  Alexan- 
drian thought.  The  conclusion  is  thus  stated  :  "  So 
far  as  the  flesh  is  the  seat  and  tool  of  this  power 
of  sin,  it  may  be  so  identified  with  sin  that  the 
formulae,  '  to  be  in  the  flesh  '  and  '  to  walk  after  the 
flesh,'  signify  simply  '  to  live  in  sin,  or  according  to 
the  sinful  principle.'  "  8  This  identification  of  the 
flesh  with  the  sinful  principle  which  dwells  in  it  is 
explained  by  the  influence  of  Hellenic  dualism  and 
the  doctrine  of  the  essential  evil  of  matter. 

There  are  here  two  separate  questions  to  be  con- 
sidered: (a)  How  far  the  <rdp%  is  for  Paul  identical 
with  the  body  ;  and  (6)  In  what  modes  of  thought  his 

1  So  Baur,  Neutest.  Theol.  p.  143  sg.,  and  similarly  Holsten, 
Die  Bedeutung  des  Wortes  crap£  im  Lehrbegriffe  des  Paulus,  in 
Zum  Evangelium  des  Paulu*  und  des  Petrus,  p.  365  sq.  :  Pfleiderei^ 
Paulinismus,  p.  48  sq.  1  Aufl.  ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  48  sq. 

*  Das  Urchristenthum,  p.  178  sq. 

8  Das  Urchristenthum,  p.  187. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  141 

conception  of  crapf  has  its  root.  The  former  is  an 
exegetical,  the  latter  an  historical  question. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  simple  primary 
meaning  of  adp%  as  denoting  the  material  of  the  hu- 
man body  is  the  logical  starting-point  of  his  doctrine. 
The  question  is  whether  his  idea  is  so  dominated  by 
that  original  conception,  and  supplemented  with  Hel- 
lenic views,  as  to  yield  the  doctrine  that  human  na- 
ture, composed  as  it  is  in  part  of  material  elements,  is 
essentially  evil.  This  question  can  be  answered  only 
by  a  study  of  the  apostle's  language.  The  passages 
where  o-dpg  is  associated  with  a^aprLa  and  contrasted 
with  1/01)9,  "Trvevfjia,  and  kindred  terms  are  of  chief 
importance. 

In  Gal.  v.  19-23,  the  apostle  enumerates  the  works 
of  the  flesh  (ja  epya  T»}<?  crap/eo?),  and  sets  them 
in  contrast  with  the  fruit  of  the  spirit  (6  Kapiros 
rov  7ri/6u/iaT09).  Among  the  former  are  found  not 
only  sensuous  sins,  such  as  unchastity  and  drunken- 
ness, but  (chiefly)  such  as  have  no  direct  connection 
with  bodily  impulses,  —  "  enmities,  strife,  jealousies, 
wraths,  factions,  divisions,  heresies,  envyings."  Sim- 
ilarly in  Rom.  xiii.  13, 14,  the  avoidance  of  making 
provision  for  the  flesh  (-7-779  <raptco<;  irpovoia}  includes 
the  renunciation,  not  only  of  "  chambering  and  wan- 
tonness," but  also  of  "  strife  and  jealousy "  (ept9, 
£?}A,o9).  In  addressing  the  Corinthians  the  apostle 
designates  them  as  carnal  (<ra/>/a/co/),  because  "there 
is  among  them  jealousy  and  strife  [£77X05  ical  6/3*9]  " 
(1  Cor.  iii.  3).  Moreover,  he  speaks  (2  Cor.  i.  12)  of 


142  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

a  <ro<f>ta  o-apiuicij ;  that  is,  a  worldly  and  selfish 
policy  as  opposed  to  the  "holiness  and  sincerity 
which  come  from  God."  These  examples  appear  to 
me  to  be  absolutely  decisive  against  the  view  that 
Paul  associates  sin  inseparably  with  the  body,  or 
makes  its  essence  to  consist  in  sensuousness.  In 
these  expressions  at  least,  a-dp^  is  used  in  a  sense  at 
once  more  comprehensive  and  more  distinctly  ethical 
than  that  theory  supposes  which  makes  it  a  name  for 
"  the  impulse  of  sensuousness."  l 

If  we  consider  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  body  (crw//,a), 
we  shall  find  that  he  by  no  means  regards  it  as  essen- 
tially sinful,  and  that  his  conception  of  it  is  not 
equivalent  to  the  idea  denoted  by  adpj-.  It  is  true 
that  "  flesh  and  blood  "  (a  designation  of  the  corrupt 
and  perishable  material  substance  of  the  body ;  cf. 
r)  <f>0opd,  in  loco)  "cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God" 
(1  Cor.  xv.  50),  —  that  is,  that  the  "natural  body" 
(o-w/ta  -tyvxiKoV)  verse  44)  cannot  partake  in  the 
glorified  life  without  transformation  ;  but  that  is  not 
because  of  its  inherent  sinfulness,  but  on  account  of 
its  corruptibl'eness  :  "  Corruption  doth  not  inherit  in- 
corruption"  (verse  50).  Moreover,  the  fact  that 
"  the  body  is  for  the  Lord,  and  the  Lord  for  the  body  " 
(1  Cor.  vi.  13),  —  that  is,  that  it  belongs  to  Christ, 
who  has  the  intention  to  rule  and  use  it,  —  and  that 
it  may  become  "  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Spirit " 
(verse  19),  is  conclusive  proof  that  Paul  did  not 

1  Usteri,  Paulin.  Lehrbegrijf,  p.  41,  "  9  <rdp£  ist  der  Reiz  der 
Sinnlichkeit." 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  143 

regard  it  as  essentially  sinful,  and  that  he  could  not 
have  charged  upon  it  the  character  and  works  which 
he  so  often  predicates  of  the  o-apf. 

These  passages  furnish  conclusive  evidence  that 
Paul's  conceptions  of  <rdpj;  and  of  o-ayia  are  not  strictly 
identical.  It  is  equally  plain  that  in  other  passages 
he  uses  them  as  nearly  synonymous.  In  Rom.  vii. 
14-25,  he  gives  a  description  in  the  first  person,  and 
reflecting  his  own  experience  as  a  Pharisee,  of  the 
conflict  which  ensues  in  the  unregenerate  man  who 
has  been  awakened  to  a  sense  of  his  sinfulness  under 
the  law.  This  conflict  is  between  sin  (a^apria)  and 
the  inner  man,  denoted  by  eo-co  av9pwjro<;  (verse  22),  or 
between  the  vofios  rrjs  afiapTias  and  the  i/6/xo?  rov  1/069 
(verse  23).  The  wish  and  desire  (dekew,  o-vvijSofiai, 
verses  18,  22)  are  on  the  side  of  the  divine  law,  but 
the  power  of  sin  dwelling  in  the  flesh  (verse  18) 
thwarts  the  efforts  made  and  renders  them  futile 
(verses  15, 19,  20,  23).  The  description  begins  with 
an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  the  good  and  spiritual 
law  (verse  14,  cf.  16)  works  only  this  doleful  result. 
It  is  because  the  man  is  carnal  (a-apKiKfc),  sold  as  a 
captive,  and  delivered  over  into  the  power  of  sin 
(verse  14,  cf.  23).  This  reign  of  sin  is  described  as 
rj  evoifcovffa  ev  e'/tot  afiaprla ',  and  it  occasions  the 
negative  statement  that  good  does  not  dwell  ev  efj-ol, 
and  the  phrase  ev  epol  is  explained  by  the  phrase 
ev  ry  (raptci  pov  (verse  18).  Similarly  the  reign  of 
the  principle  of  sin  is  located  in  the  members  (ev  rofc 
i/,  verse  23),  and  the  final  cry  for  deliverance 


144  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

is,  "Who  shall  deliver  me  from  the  body  of  this 
death  [<rc3/ia  rov  Qavd-rov  TOVTOV]  ? "  (Verse  24.)  Fi- 
nally, in  the  summing  up,  the  mind,  or  reason  (voO?), 
and  the  flesh  are  spoken  of  as  the  contending  prin- 
ciples or  powers. 

It  is  clear  that  in  these  passages  a-dpl;  is  nearly 
equivalent  to  awpa  and  /iteXi;,  and  denotes  the  mate- 
rial substance  of  man  as  the  seat  of  sin  and  the  sphere 
of  its  manifestation.  Sin  and  the  flesh  are  not  strictly 
identified,  but  are  closely  associated  because  related  to 
each  other  as  principle  and  instrument  or  as  power 
and  place  of  operation.  Here,  then,  <rdpg  is  the  body  as 
actually  subjugated  and  ruled  by  sin ;  but  nothing  is 
said  which  involves  the  view  that  the  adpg  is  inherently 
and  necessarily  sinful,  or  that  it  cannot  be  delivered 
from  the  indwelling  power  of  evil.  The  apostle  is 
sketching  a  fact  of  experience  and  history,  and  not 
giving  an  explanation  of  the  origin  and  nature  of  sin. 
We  have  in  this  important  passage  the  fundamental 
conception  which  lies  at  the  basis  of  all  Paul's  teaching 
on  the  subject.  The  flesh  is  primarily  the  material 
element  considered  as  the  seat  of  evil  impulses  and 
passions,  and  so  as  the  special  sphere  of  sin's  mani- 
festation. But  how  far  Paul  is  from  regarding  the 
o-dpj;  as  essentially  sinful  may  be  seen  from  his  exhor- 
tation :  "  Let  us  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  defilement 
of  flesh  and  spirit"  (2  Cor.  vii.  1),  —  a  passage  which 
can  have  no  proper  meaning  except  upon  the  assump- 
tion that  the  flesh  as  well  as  the  spirit  is  capable  of 
purification  from  sin. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  145 

With  this  conception  agree  the  allusions  in  Rom.  vi. 
where  the  nature  and  requirements  of  the  spiritual 
life  are  sketched.  "Our  old  man"  —  that  is,  our 
former  sinful  self  — "  was  crucified  with  Christ," 
says  the  apostle,  "  that  the  body  of  sin  [TO  aw^a  rfj<s 
afjiaprias]  might  be  destroyed"  (verse  6).  Here  the 
figure  of  crucifixion  naturally  required  the  term 
"  body  of  sin  "  as  an  explanation  of  6  TraXtuo?  avOp&Tros. 
By  it  is  meant  the  body,  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  is 
ruled  by  sin,  as  is  shown  by  verse  12 :"  Let  not  sin 
therefore  reign  in  your  mortal  body,  that  ye  should 
obey  the  lusts  thereof."  The  exhortation  implies  that 
the  dominion  of  sin  in  the  body  can  be  broken,  as  do 
those  which  urge  that  the  members  shall  be  made 
"  instruments  of  righteousness "  (oir\a  &*moo-uz/77<?, 
verse  13). 

From  this  primary  notion  of  the  a-dp^  which  clearly 
rests  upon  an  Old  Testament  basis,  it  is  but  a  short 
and  easy  step  to  the  idea  that  the  flesh,  which  is  so 
closely  associated  with  sin  as  its  seat,  is  itself,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  an  anti-spiritual  force.  Sdp^  thus 
becomes  a  term  to  express  the  power  of  those  natural 
sinful  desires  and  impulses  in  unregenerate  men.  In 
such  the  flesh  predominates,  and  not  the  spirit.  They 
may  thus  be  said  to  be  in  the  flesh  (Rom.  vii.  5),  to 
live  or  walk  according  to  the  flesh  (Rom.  viii.  4  sq. ; 
2  Cor.  x.  2  s<?.),  and  to  possess  the  modes  of  thought 
and  feeling  which  are  dictated  by  sinful  desire 
(<J>powr)/j,a  T%  <ra/)/co9,  Rom.  viii.  6  s^.).  By  these 
terms  a  second  phase  of  meaning  is  denoted,  by  which 


146  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

<rdpg  acquires  a  semi-ethical  significance,  and  the  way 
is  paved  for  that  usage  which  we  first  examined,  where 
o-dpj;  is  seen  to  be  a  general  term  to  denote  unre- 
newed  human  nature,  the  works  of  which,  such  as 
strife,  wrath,  and  jealousy,  are  enumerated  (page  141). 
In  the  light  of  these  explanations,  then,  we  may  dis- 
tinguish three  shades  of  meaning  in  the  Pauline  use 
of  the  term:  (1)  the  physical,  in  which  <rdpj;  is  the 
body  or  members  considered  as  the  dwelling-place 
of  sin ;  (2)  the  semi-ethical,  in  which  the  flesh  as  the 
seat  of  evil  impulses  is  treated  as  an  anti-spiritual 
power ;  (3)  the  ethical,  in  which  the  flesh  denotes  un- 
regenerate  human  nature.1 

1  I  find  distinctions  closely  like  these  in  Pfleiderer's  Urchris- 
tenihum,  p.  186  sq.,  with  the  difference  that  Pfleiderer  finds  the 
primary  meaning  of  aap£  in  such  expressions  as  "fleshly  wis- 
dom," "wise  after  the  flesh"  (2  Cor.  i.  12 ;  1  Cor.  i.  26),  and 
"  Are  ye  not  carnal  and  walk  as  men?"  (1  Cor.  iii.  3),  which  he 
interprets  as  meaning  that  "  to  be  carnal "  and  "  to  be  men  "  are 
equivalent  expressions.  To  me  these  passages  seem  rather  to 
belong  to  the  more  developed  ethical  views  where  "  to  be  carnal " 
signifies  "  to  act  according  to  the  spirit  that  rules  unregenerate 
human  nature,"  as  is  shown  by  the  charge  that  there  is  among 
them  "  envy  and  strife"  (see  page  141). 

It  would  carry  me  too  far  beyond  my  present  purpose  and 
unduly  extend  the  limits  of  this  chapter  to  explain  the  different 
shades  of  opinion  respecting  this  point  of  Paul's  doctrine  which 
have  been  current  since  Baur.  One  of  the  most  elaborate  exami- 
nations of  the  subject  is  that  of  Holsten,  Die  Bedeutung  des 
Wortes  <rdp£  im  Lehrbegriffe  des  Paulus,  reprinted  in  Zum  Evange- 
lium  des  Paulus  und  Petrus,  in  which  he  maintains  that  <rop£  is 
the  body  as  animated  by  life ;  the  material  element  of  man  is 
formaliter  aw/io,  matericUiter  erdp£.  This  <rap£  is  necessarily  <rap£ 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  147 

This  analysis  illustrates  the  difficulty  of  framing 
a  definition  which  shall  include  all  the  shades  of 
meaning  and  degrees  of  force  in  which  Paul  employs 
the  term.  It  may  be  serviceable  to  add  a  few  exam- 
ples of  the  efforts  made  by  leading  scholars  to  formu- 
late the  ethical  meaning  of  the  word.  Thayer's  Lexi- 
con (4  sub  voce~) :  "  2dpg  .  .  .  has  an  ethical  sense,  and 
denotes  mere  human  nature,  the  earthly  nature  of  man 
apart  from  divine  influence,  and  therefore  prone  to 
sin  and  opposed  to  God  ;  accordingly  it  includes  what- 
ever in  the  soul  is  weak,  low,  debased,  tending  to 
ungodliness  and  vice."  Cremer  (Biblico-Theol.  Lexi- 
con^ sub  voce)  :  "  In  antithesis  to  Trvevna,  <rdpg  signi- 
fies the  sinful  condition  of  human  nature  in  and 
according  to  its  bodily  manifestation."  Weizsacker 
(Das  apostolische  Zeitalter,  p.  130)  :  "  The  flesh  is 
the  expression  for  the  power  of  sin  in  the  natural  life. 
It  appears  as  the  source  of  all  sorts  of  sin,  and  its 
power  consists  not  merely  in  the  opposition  of  indiffer- 
ence to  the  demands  and  impulses  of  the  Spirit,  but  in 
active  opposition  against  the  Spirit,"  etc.  Dickson 

auaprias  ]  that  is,  man  is  essentially  evil  in  the  sense  that  the 
crdp£  constitutes  the  nature-ground  of  all  sin.  Conscious  trans- 
gression and  the  sense  of  guilt  are  due  only  to  personal  action. 
Hence  the  dualism  of  a  determining  evil  power  and  a  freedom 
that  may  resist,  but  cannot  overcome  it  (as  described  in  Rom.  vii. 
14  s<?.).  For  an  exposition  of  the  views  of  Holsten  and  other  recent 
critics,  I  refer  to  Professor  Dickson's  Baird  Lecture  for  1883  enti- 
tled, Saint  Paul's  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit ;  and  I  espe- 
cially commend  his  own  summary  and  conclusions  in  chapter  xi. 
of  that  volume  (Glasgow,  1883). 


148  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

(Saint  Paul's  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit, 
p.  310  sq.)  enumerates  the  following  points  in  con- 
cluding his  discussion :  (a)  Paul  does  not  identify 
cra/j|  and  a/jbaprla ;  (6)  he  does  not  identify  crdpj;  with 
the  material  body ;  (<?)  he  does  not  identify  matter,  or 
the  material  side  of  man,  with  evil ;  (cT)  he  does  not 
associate  sin  exclusively  with  the  body  or  with  the 
sensuous  nature  of  man ;  (e)  his  design  is  not  to  set 
forth  the  origin  of  sin  from  the  o-apf ,  but  the  power 
of  sin  in  the  o-apf ;  (/)  Paul  means  to  explain  the 
historical  origin  of  sin  (in  Rom.  v.  12  s^.),  but  not  its 
psychological  origin  (in  his  doctrine  of  the  flesh) ; 
(g)  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  flesh  is  based,  not  upon 
speculation,  but  upon  experience  ;  (h)  crdp^  is  a  <rap% 
a/iapr/a?  in  all  cases  save  one,  that  of  Jesus  Christ. J 

It  has  been  maintained  by  many  recent  writers  (for 
example,  Holsten  and  Pfleiderer)  that  Paul  in  his 
doctrine  of  the  flesh  intends  to  give  an  account  of 
the  origin  and  nature  of  sin.  In  their  view  we  have 
two  explanations  of  sin's  origin,  —  one  which  traces 
it  back  to  Adam's  sin,  and  one  which  places  its  roots 
in  the  carnal  element  of  human  nature.  The  first 
is  an  historical  explanation,  and  is  connected  with 
Jewish  rabbinic  thought;  the  second  is  a  psycho- 
logical explanation,  and  is  derived  from  Alexandrian 

1  It  is  noticeable  that  Paul  is  careful  to  speak  of  Christ  as 
sent  tv  o/zoicojuan  a-apKos  duaprlas  (Rom.  viii.  3).  thus  shunning  to 
attribute  to  Christ  the  associations  of  sinfulness  which  <rap£,  as 
matter  of  experience,  carries  with  it  in  human  life.  In  1  Tim. 
iii.  16,  where  the  connection  involved  no  such  danger,  it  is 
affirmed  of  Christ,  e 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  149 

speculation.  In  this  peculiar  combination  of  elements 
these  writers  find  a  good  example  of  the  syncretism 
of  Paul.  But  if,  as  we  have  sought  to  show,  the  flesh 
is  not  conceived  of  by  Paul  after  the  manner  of 
Graeco-Alexandrian  philosophy,  if  it  is  not  in  itself 
sinful,  then  Paul's  teaching  concerning  it  cannot  be 
intended  to  explain  the  origin  or  nature  of  sin,  but  only 
its  mode  of  operation.  An  impartial  exegesis  of  the 
apostle's  language  makes  it  very  difficult  to  bring  his 
ideas  into  accord  with  the  dualistic  philosophy  from 
which  it  is  sought  to  derive  them.  It  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  there  are  certain  suggestive  points  of  simi- 
larity between  some  of  Paul's  thoughts  and  the  views 
which  were  current  in  the  later  Greek  philosophy 
with  which  he  must  have  come  more  or  less  into  con- 
tact; but  the  hypothesis  of  a  derivation  of  his  doc- 
trine of  sin  from  this  philosophy,  and  especially  the 
hypothesis  of  two  incompatible  sources  of  that  doc- 
trine, must  be  considered  as  unverified  in  its  most 
essential  point,  until  it  is  more  convincingly  shown 
that  Paul's  language  can  be  squared  with  the  idea 
that  matter  is  inherently  evil,  and  that  consequently 
the  body  is  the  source  of  sin.1  We  deem  it  safe  to 
affirm  that  the  considerations  which  are  adduced  by 
recent  scholars  are  entirely  inadequate  to  show  that 

1  Cf.  Pfleiderer,  Urchristenthum,  pp.  190-192.  Per  contra, 
Dickson,  Saint  Paul's  Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit,  chap.  x. 
For  an  elaborate  exhibition  of  the  parallels  and  differences  be- 
tween Philo  and  Paul,  see  Siegfried,  Philo  von  Alexandria  als 
Ausleger  des  A.  T.,  pp.  304-310. 


150  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

Paul's  doctrine  of  sin  was  materially  influenced  by 
Alexandrian  thought.  Its  roots  are  rather  to  be 
sought  in  the  soil  of  the  Old  Testament. 

It  is  wholly  improbable  that  the  apostle  ever  set 
before  himself  the  definite  purpose  of  explaining  the 
origin  of  sin.  With  the  Old  Testament  narrative  of 
the  fall  of  Adam  in  mind,  he  declares  that  sin  began 
in  his  transgression  and  extended  its  dominion  over 
all  mankind.  In  a  mode  of  thought  characteristic 
of  him  he  contemplates  that  as  the  great  race-sin  in 
which  all  Adam's  descendants  sinned.  No  philosophy 
of  the  subject  is  given.  It  could  never  have  been  the 
apostle's  intention  to  pronounce  upon  the  psychologi- 
cal problems  which  later  speculation  has  raised  con- 
cerning the  beginning  of  moral  evil.  Paul  treats  the 
subject  chiefly  from  a  practical  standpoint  and  in  the 
light  of  human  experience. 

Our  next  inquiry  is,  What  is  the  relation  of  sin  to 
the  will  ?  If  we  turn  to  those  passages  in  which  the 
object  is  not  to  assert  the  origin  or  depict  the  enslav- 
ing power  of  sin,  but  to  enforce  man's  responsibility 
and  guilt  on  account  of  it,  we  shall  find  abundant  evi- 
dence that  sin  has  its  seat  primarily  in  the  will.  Its 
roots  lie  deep  in  the  past  of  the  race,  considered  as  a 
unity ;  it  masters  the  body,  inflaming  its  appetites  and 
perverting  its  passions.  But  sin  is  man's  voluntary  and 
guilty  act ;  and  the  responsibility  for  it  belongs  to  him 
who  commits  it.  Paul  never  represents  men  as  subjects 
of  guilt  or  as  objects  of  moral  judgment  on  account  of 
any  one's  sins  except  their  own.  His  most  extended 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  151 

portrayal  of  the  development  of  sin  in  history  is  found 
in  his  arraignment  of  the  Gentile  and  Jewish  worlds 
in  Rom.  i.  and  ii.  Throughout  this  passage  the  guilt 
of  sin  is  charged  to  the  evil  choices  of  men.  They 
wilfully  sinned  against  the  light  which  God  had  given 
them,  and  can  plead  no  palliation  or  excuse  (i.  18- 
20).  The  action  of  God  in  plunging  them  into  deeper 
depths  of  sin  (verses  24,  26)  was  but  the  infliction  of 
the  judicial  consequences  of  their  action.  It  was  be- 
cause "  they  refused  [OVK  e8o/a'/zao-ai>]  to  have  God  in 
their  knowledge "  that  "  God  gave  them  up  to  a 
reprobate  [aSo/a^o^]  mind"  (verse  28), — a  state- 
ment which  is  rendered  the  more  pointed  by  the  evi- 
dent play  on  the  words  e$oKi/j,acrav  and  dSotcifiov,  which 
significantly  emphasizes  the  connection  of  God's  action 
with  their  own  as  its  penal  consequence. 

And  when  the  apostle's  thought  widens  to  take  in 
the  race,  it  is  the  same  charge  of  guilt  for  evil  choices 
and  inexcusable  deeds  which  he  imputes  to  all  man- 
kind,—  "  Wherefore  thou  art  without  excuse,  0  man, 
whosoever  thou  art  that  judgest "  (Rom.  ii.  1).  And 
what  are  the  elements  of  the  sin  which  he  now  lays  at 
the  door  of  the  Jew  ?  There  is,  first  of  all,  the  prac- 
tice (frpda-a-eiv)  of  such  things  as  have  already  been 
charged  upon  the  Gentiles  (verses  2, 3) ;  there  is  con- 
tempt for  God's  goodness,  hardness  and  impenitence 
of  heart  (verses  4,  5),  for  which  God  will  punish  them 
according  to  their  deeds  (verse  6) ;  and  by  clear  intima- 
tions of  their  guilt,  the  catalogue  of  the  Jews'  sins  is 
swelled  by  the  crimes  of  theft,  adultery,  robbery  of  tern- 


152  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

pies,  and  blasphemy  (verses  21-24), — sins  of  choice 
and  purpose  for  which  they  cannot  escape  the  judg- 
ment of  God.  To  whatever  point,  then,  the  origin  of 
the  sinful  disposition  may  be  traced  back,  it  is  obvious 
from  such  representations  as  this  that  the  apostle  re- 
garded sin,  considered  as  a  matter  of  experience,  as  con- 
sisting of  voluntary  choices  and  acts,  and  that  he  held 
directly  responsible  for  these  choices  and  acts  only  those 
persons  who  committed  them.  The  law  of  the  divine 
judgment  in  relation  to  unforgiven  sin  is,  "  To  every 
man  according  to  his  deeds  [TO,  epya  avroO],"  (Rom.  ii. 
6  ;  2  Cor.  v.  10).  No  doctrinal  inferences  from  a 
more  obscure  reference  of  the  general  sinfulness  of 
the  race  to  the  sin  of  primeval  man  is  warranted  by 
Paul's  system,  if  they  be  contradictory  of  this  maxim. 
With  this  principle  the  common  interpretation  of 
Eph.  ii.  3  —  "And  [we]  were  by  nature  children 
of  wrath,"  etc.  —  is  inconsistent.  It  is  generally 
understood  to  affirm  that  all  men  are  the  objects  of 
God's  wrath  from  their  very  birth  by  reason  of  origi- 
nal sin  and  native  depravity.  It  should  be  noticed 
that  the  first  person  (^/iefr)  of  verse  3  is  the  counter- 
part of  the  second  person  (i^et?)  in  verses  1  and  2. 
The  first  two  verses  picture  the  state  of  his  Gentile 
readers  previous  to  their  conversion.  They  were 
"dead  through  trespasses  and  sins;"  they  "  walked  ac- 
cording to  the  course  of  this  world,"  etc.  But  Paul 
will  apply  no  terms  to  their  former  state  which  he  will 
not  also  apply  to  himself  and  to  his  fellow  Jewish 
Christians.  Hence  he  frankly  confesses  :  "  Among 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  153 

whom  [that  is,  "  the  sons  of  disobedience,"  verse  2] 
we  also  all  once  lived  in  the  lusts  of  our  flesh,  doing 
the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  mind,  and  were  by 
nature  children  of  wrath,  even  as  the  rest "  (verse  3). 
We  Jewish  Christians  were  "  children  of  wrath  "  just 
as  the  Gentiles  were  "  sons  of  disobedience,"  —  is  the 
apostle's  affirmation. 

The  terms  and  context  of  the  passage  are  unfavor- 
able to  the  common  dogmatic  interpretation.  The 
object  is  to  affirm  as  much  of  the  Jewish  Christians, 
to  which  class  the  apostle  belonged,  as  was  asserted 
of  the  Gentiles.  No  allusion  whatever  has  been  made, 
in  the  case  of  the  Gentiles,  to  original  sin  ;  none 
would  have  been  natural  or  appropriate,  since  Paul's 
object  in  the  whole  passage  is  simply  to  show  that 
the  mercy  of  God  did  not  stop  at  the  most  heinous 
offences.  The  terms  in  which  the  sinfulness  of  both 
classes  is  described  have  no  suggestion  of  original  or 
inherited  sin,  and  create  a  strong  presumption  against 
interpretations  which  find  this  in  the  expression  ren- 
dered "  by  nature  children  of  wrath."  The  Gen- 
tiles are  accused  of  trespasses  and  sins  and  of  a 
certain  course  of  conduct,  and  to  the  Jews  are 
attributed  the  life  of  carnal  lust  and  the  conduct 
which  the  desires  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  thoughts 
(rwv  Siavoiwv)  inspire.  Unless  the  phrase  under  re- 
view is  to  be  wholly  severed  from  its  context  and 
treated  independently,  it  must  be  held  to  be  prac- 
tically synonymous  with  the  terms  descriptive  of 
sinfulness  with  which  it  is  co-ordinated. 


154  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

It  is  further  noticeable  that  the  term  "  by  nature  " 
(<£y<m)  receives  no  special  emphasis  according  to  the 
order  of  the  words  in  which  both  the  Textus  Receptus 
and  the  modern  critical  texts  agree ;  namely,  KOI  ^/*e#a 
[r^iei/]  rexva  (frvaet  opyfjs.  Had  the  apostle  intended 
the  emphasis  which  doctrinal  theology  has  been  wont 
to  place  upon  these  words,  —  namely,  "  By  our  very 
birth,  by  the  innate  depravity  which  we  brought  into 
the  world,  we  are  objects  of  God's  wrath,"  —  it  is 
strange  that  he  did  not  so  much  as  throw 
into  an  emphatic  position.  As  it  is,  however, 
becomes  a  defining  term,  without  special  emphasis, 
to  the  phrase  ritcva  opyfjs,  — "  wrath-children  by 
nature." 

But  what  is  this  $jJ<m,  in  accordance  with  which 
sinful  men  appear  as  subject  to  divine  wrath  ?  In 
itself  considered,  the  word  can  mean  either  "  birth  " 
or  "  growth ;"  that  is,  it  may  refer  primarily  to  that 
vdiich  is  inherited,  and  innate  as  such  (so  in  Gal.  ii. 
15),  or  to  that  which  is  developed  by  practice  and 
habit,  —  the  unfolding  of  the  native  disposition  in  the 
voluntary  life.  When,  for  example,  the  Gentiles  are 
spoken  of  (Rom.  ii.  14)  as  doing  Qva-ei  the  things  of 
the  law,  it  is  certainly  not  meant  that  they  are  there 
thought  of  as  doing  them  by  their  very  inherited 
nature.  If  the  meaning  which  is  commonly  claimed 
for  (f>vo-ei  in  Eph.  ii.  3  were  applied  to  Rom.  ii.  14,  we 
should  have  in  the  latter  a  proof-text  to  show  that 
even  heathen  naturally  do  the  divine  will.  Thus  a 
method  of  interpretation  which  derives  certain  re- 


THE   DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  155 

suits  from  the  former  passage  would,  if  consistently 
applied  to  the  second,  elicit  other  doctrinal  inferences 
not  so  easily  adjusted  to  the  system  which  they  are 
designed  to  serve. 

The  precise  sense  of  <f>vo-€i  remains,  then,  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  context  and  by  evidence  to  be  derived 
from  Paul's  teaching  elsewhere.  We  have  considered 
the  bearing  of  the  context ;  let  us  inquire  whether  the 
proposition  means  that  the  Jews  were  by  and  from 
their  very  birth  re/cva  0/97?}?.  It  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  Paul  could  represent  his  people  as  the  natu- 
ral branches  (oi  Kara  <f>va-iv  K\dSoi,  Rom.  xi.  21)  of  the 
sacred  olive-tree  of  the  theocracy,  and  at  the  same 
time  by  birth  children  of  wrath  ((j>v<rei,  [=Kara  <f>v<riv~\ 
re'tcva  0/37%).  In  Rom.  xi.  16  they  are  termed  holy,  as 
is  the  root  from  which  they  sprang.  Again,  in  ix.  4,  he 
declares  that  to  them  belongs  the  adoption  (vloBea-ia). 
How  would  this  comport  with  the  common  interpreta- 
tion of  our  passage  ?  Finally,  in  Gal.  ii.  15,  the 
(j)vcret,  'lovSaloi  are  contrasted  with  e'£  effvwv  a^ap- 
rcoXoi.  That  the  Jews  were  as  great  sinners  in  fact 
as  the  Gentiles  is  indeed  true ;  but  that  they  are  by 
birth  and  from  the  first,  objects  of  God's  wrath,  is  a 
proposition  which  cannot  easily  be  reconciled  with 
the  apostle's  language  in  other  connections.  I  think 
it  cannot  be  deemed  an  uncharitable  judgment  to 
affirm  that  a  dogmatic  view  of  original  sin  and  inborn 
depravity  has  used  the  passage  (Eph.  ii.  3)  in  isolation 
from  its  connection  and  without  critical  comparison 
with  other  Pauline  expressions  until  its  natural  force 


156  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

has  become  fundamentally  perverted.1  It  has,  indeed, 
been  common  to  characterize  as  "  Pelagian "  and 
"  rationalistic  "  any  dissent  from  this  interpretation 
(see,  for  example,  Olshausen  in  loco).  But  at  length 
the  day  is  drawing  to  a  close  when  dogmatic  and 
speculative  opinion  so  dominates  exegesis  that  its 
party-names  can  be  applied  even  to  the  processes  and 
results  of  interpretation,  on  the  assumption  that  theo- 
logical opinion  should  of  course  settle  the  meaning 
of  texts.  It  cannot  be  said  that  Meyer  is  predisposed 
to  "  Pelagian  "  exegesis.  No  interpreter  has  more 
strenuously  maintained  the  absolute  predestination- 
ism  of  Rom.  ix.,  and  the  necessity  of  understanding 
Rom.  v.  12  to  mean,  "  All  sinned  when  Adam  sinned." 
But  theological  inferences  —  especially  such  as  have  no 
Pauline  warrant  —  are  not  to  be  allowed  to  overbear 
the  force  of  the  context  and  the  statements  of  the 
apostle  upon  the  same  subject  in  other  connec- 
tions. I  conclude  this  brief  survey  of  the  passage 
with  the  paraphrase  with  which  Weiss  explains  the 
force  of  the  expression :  "  Yet  the  Jews  really  walk 
in  the  lusts  of  the  flesh  like  the  children  of  disobedi- 
ence, and  are  on  that  account,  like  them,  children  of 
wrath  ("verse  3).  But  if  <j>vcrei,  is  here  added,  that 
involves  just  the  opposite  of  what  they  have  become 
Qea-ei ;  that  is,  on  the  ground  of  the  covenants  of 
promise  (verse  12)."  2 

1  I  especially  commend  to  the  reader  the  discussion  of  Mey«r 
in  loco,  to  which  I  am  largely  indebted. 
*  Bib.  Theol.  §  100  b. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  157 

We  cannot,  then,  on  the  ground  of  this  passage 
make  sin  in  the  strict  sense  an  inheritance  indepen- 
dent of  any  personal  volition  or  choice  ;  for  even  if 
(frvcrei  be  rendered  "  by  nature,"  it  might  denote  the 
development  by  man's  own  acts  of  a  native  tendency 
or  bias,  as  well  as  by  birth  per  se.  In  any  case,  the 
term  cannot  be  made  to  exclude  the  volitional  element 
in  sin  and  thus  to  afford  a  basis  for  the  definition  that 
"  sin  is  a  nature,  and  that  nature  is  guilt."  That  Paul 
regarded  all  sin  as  having  a  connection  with  the  first 
transgression,  we  consider  certain.  We  have  seen 
that  in  a  single  instance  and  for  a  special  purpose  in 
argument,  this  view  led  him  to  identify  the  sinning  of 
all  with  that  first  sin.  On  this  mystical  or  semi-figu- 
rative expression,  and  upon  Eph.  ii.  3,  interpreted 
in  accord  with  dogmatic  presuppositions,  chiefly  de- 
pend the  historic  theories  of  original  sin  and  total 
depravity,  including  the  ideas  of  the  real  identity  of 
all  wills  with  that  of  Adam,  imputed  guilt  in  conse- 
quence of  his  sin,  the  condemnation  of  all  from  the 
moment  of  birth,  the  total  natural  aversion  of  mankind 
to  all  goodness  and  their  inclination  to  all  evil,  the 
reprobation  of  men  for  their  part  in  Adam's  trans- 
gression, and  the  eternal  punishment  of  infants.  On 
the  latter  point  human  feeling  has  availed  to  soften 
dogmatic  rigor,  with  fatal  consequences  to  the  con- 
sistency of  the  scheme  as  a  whole.  And  all  this  is 
attributed  to  Paul ! 

The  great  pervading  thought  of  the  apostle  concern- 
ing sin  is  that  it  is  a  wilful  perversion,  a  wrong  direc- 


158  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

tion  and  wicked  depravation  of  life.  Considered  as  a 
principle,  he  holds  that  its  roots  lie  deep  in  human 
nature.  This  idea  underlies  his  treatment  of  human 
sinf ulness ;  but  he  gives  no  theory  in  regard  to  the 
origin  and  spread  of  this  taint  or  depravation  of  hu- 
man nature,  and  his  language  affords  no  basis  for 
a  definition  of  its  relation  to  conscious,  personal  trans- 
gression. That  which  stands  in  the  foreground  of  his 
thought  is  the  fact  of  sin  as  a  matter  of  universal 
experience  and  of  fatal  consequences  to  mankind.  Of 
this  he  has  a  deep  and  intense  feeling,  —  a  conviction 
which  powerfully  influences  his  whole  view  of  redemp- 
tion. But  while  the  sinful  principle  dominates  in  all 
men,  it  is  un-Pauline  to  say  that  no  capacity  for 
goodness,  or  aspiration  after  it,  can  exist  in  the 
natural  man.  He  still  has  a  certain  knowledge  of 
God  (Rom.  i.  19),  a  sense  of  obligation  springing  from 
conscience  (Rom.  i.  20  ;  ii.  14),  and  under  the  awaken- 
ing power  of  the  law  may  even  will  to  do  the  right  and 
delight  in  the  divine  law  after  the  inward  man,  —  the 
better  self,  —  though  the  hindering  power  of  evil  pre- 
vent the  realization  of  the  desire  (Rom.  vii.  16-23). 
All  views  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  sin  are  one-sided  or 
exaggerated  which  exclude  from  human  nature  this 
possible  discernment  of  the  good  and  the  capacity  to 
desire  and  strive  for  it.  Paul's  doctrine  of  sin  is  not 
the  whole  of  his  doctrine  of  human  nature.  The 
dominion  of  sin  over  man  is  by  no  means  equivalent 
to  that  identification  of  his  will  with  sin  which  de- 
scribes his  nature  as  such  to  be  sin  and  guilt,  —  a  view 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  SIN  159 

which  would  make  all  men  as  bad  as  they  could  be  ; 
in  short,  would  describe  all  men  as  absolutely  dia- 
bolical, and  that  from  the  very  moment  of  birth. 

This  chapter  may  fitly  close  with  the  just  statements 
of  Neander  respecting  the  Pauline  anthropology  : 

"Paul  certainly  represents  a  corruption  of  human 
nature  as  the  consequence  of  the  first  sin,  and  admits  a 
supremacy  of  the  sinful  principle  in  the  human  race,  but 
not  in  such  a  manner  that  the  original  nature  of  man  as 
the  offspring  of  God,  and  created  in  his  image,  has  been 
thereby  destroyed.  Rather  he  admits  the  existence  in 
man  of  two  opposing  principles,  —  the  predominating 
sinful  principle,  and  the  divine  principle,  depressed  and 
obscured  by  the  former,  yet  still  more  or  less  manifesting 
its  heavenly  origin.  Hence  he  deduces  an  undeniable 
consciousness  of  God  and  an  equally  undeniable  moral  self- 
consciousness  as  a  radiation  from  the  former.  And  as  he 
recognizes  an  original  and  universal  revelation  of  God  to 
the  human  consciousness,  so  also  he  acknowledges  in 
human  nature  a  constitution  adapted  to  receive  it;  as 
there  is  a  self -testimony  of  God,  in  whom  the  spirit  of 
man  lives,  moves,  and  exists,  so  also  there  is  an  original 
susceptibility  in  human  nature  corresponding  to  that 
testimony.  The  whole  creation  as  a  revelation  of  God, 
especially  of  his  almightiness  and  goodness,  is  designed 
to  arouse  the  spirit  of  man  to  a  perception  of  this  inward 
revelation  of  God."  J 

1  Planting  and   Training  of  the  Christian  Church,  Bohn  ed. 
i.  428,  429 ;  Am.  ed.  pp.  392,  393. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  DOCTRINE   OP  THE   LAW 

BY  the  term  "  the  law "  (o  I/O/AO?)  Paul  generally 
means  the  Mosaic  system.  When  j/o/io?  has  the  ar- 
ticle, the  reference  is  to  the  Mosaic  law  specifically ; 
where  the  article  is  omitted,  he  still  refers  to  that 
law,  but  contemplates  it  more  generically,  as  the  ex- 
pression of  the  divine  will.1  This  distinction  may  be 
easily  tested  by  reference  to  the  second  chapter  of 
Romans.  In  that  chapter  the  apostle  is  comparing 
the  Jews,  who  have  a  system  of  positive  enactments 
(I/O/AO?),  with  the  Gentiles,  who  have  not.  The  use 
of  vbfjios  is  ordinarily  generic.  "  As  many  as  sinned 
in  [the  possession  of]  law  [«/  I/O/AW]  shall  be  judged 
by  law  [Sta  VO/JLOV]  ;  for  not  hearers  of  law  [vo/iov] 
are  just  with  God,  but  the  doers  of  law  [i/o/*ot/j  shall 

1  "  The  article  is  usually  wanting  in  places  where  stress  is  laid, 
not  upon  its  historical  impress  and  outward  form,  but  upon  the 
conception  itself ;  not  upon  the  law  which  God  gave,  but  upon  law 
as  given  by  God,  and  as  therefore  the  only  one  that  is  or  can  be. 
No/iio?,  that  which  law  is,  —  namely.  God's  ordainment,  the  expres- 
sion of  the  will  of  God,  —  has  but  one  historical  embodiment ; 
namely,  6  vopos  ;  genus  and  species  coincide  "  (Cremer,  Bib.  Theol. 
Lex.  of  N.  T.  Greek,  sub  voce). 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  161 

be  justified.  For  when  Gentiles  who  do  not  have  law 
[fjirj  vbpov  e^ovra]  do  by  nature  the  requirements  of 
the  law  [ra  rov  vo/j,ov],  these  not  having  law  [Z/O/AOI/J, 
are  a  law  [W/io?]  unto  themselves,  who  show  the 
work  of  the  law  [TO  epyov  rov  vopov]  written  on  their 
hearts  "  etc.  (Rom.  ii.  12-15).  It  will  be  noticed 
that  in  all  cases  where  the  Mosaic  system  is  contem- 
plated in  a  general  way  in  contrast  to  the  mere  light 
of  nature  which  the  Gentiles  have,  z>6/zo<?  is  used  with- 
out the  article ;  where,  however,  that  system  is  specifi- 
cally referred  to,  as  in  speaking  of  the  requirements 
or  the  work  of  the  law,  the  ethical  demands  which  the 
Mosaic  law  made,  the  article  is  used.  It  thus  becomes 
evident  that  the  view  sometimes  held,  that  o  1/0/^05 
denotes  the  Mosaic  law,  and  i/o/io?  moral  or  divine  law 
in  general,  is  not  strictly  correct.1  Both  terms  refer 
to  the  Mosaic  law  in  the  apostle's  ordinary  usage,  but 
with  the  difference  between  a  specific  and  a  generic 
reference.  No  difference  in  kind  exists  between  6 
i/o/io?  and  i/6/zo<r,  but  at  most  a  difference  in  emphasis ; 
a  difference  in  form  of  thought,  not  in  substance  or 
content.  The  Mosaic  law  is  for  Paul  the  embodi- 
ment of  the  divine  law  in  general ;  that  by  i/6yu,o?  he 
should  denote  anything  different  from  that  law  would 
be  quite  contrary  to  his  view  of  its  nature  and 
purpose. 

A  few  additional  illustrations  of  the  position  here 
defined  may  be  given :  Gal.  iii.  23,  24,  "  We  were 
kept  in  ward  under  law  [UTTO  vopov]" —  the  Mosaic 

1  See,  for  example,  Holsten,  Jahrbucher  fur  prot.  Theol.  1879. 
11 


162       THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

law  certainly,  but  generically  considered,  —  "shut  up 
unto  the  faith  which  should  be  revealed.  So  that  the 
law  [  6  vopoi]  became  our  schoolmaster,"  etc.  Of  the 
substantial  identity  of  i/o'/io?  and  6  i/6/xov  here  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  question.  In  Rom.  ii.  23-27  the 
two  expressions  constantly  alternate :  "  Thou  who 
gloriest  in  [the  possession  of]  law  [ei/  vo^to] ,  dost  thou 
dishonor  God  by  the  transgression  of  the  law  [roO 
VO/JLOV']  ? "  Throughout  the  whole  passage  the  distinc- 
tion of  emphasis  which  we  have  made  is  clearly  trace- 
able, vopos  being  used  with  general,  6  I/O/AO?  with 
specific  terms,  while  the  identity  of  content  in  the 
two  expressions  is  unquestionable.  It  is  noticeable 
in  this  connection  that  I/O/AO?  never  has  the  article 
when  the  noun  on  which  it  is  dependent  in  the  geni- 
tive is  without  the  article.  Hence  we  always  read 
epya  vojiov,  "  law-works."  We  do  not  find  Paul  say- 
ing that  men  cannot  be  justified  e^  epywv  rov  vopov, — 
that  is,  by  fulfilling  the  demands  of  the  Mosaic  sys- 
tem specifically,  —  but  e'f  epycov  vopov;  that  is,  by 
deeds  of  legal  obedience.  The  Mosaic  law  is  as  cer- 
tainly meant  as  if  he  had  written  the  former  phrase, 
but  it  is  thought  of  as  the  type  and  summation  of 
divine  law  in  general,  and  the  principle,  ^f  epywv 
vo(j,ov  ov  BiKaiwdijcrerai  iracra  crapg  evo)7riov  avrov 
(Rom.  iii.  20),  thus  acquires  a  wider  sweep  and  more 
•mivo  -sal  significance. 

Such  is  Paul's  characteristic  use  of  I/O/AO?  and  o 
ro'/io?  in  his  discussion  of  the  subject  of  justification 
and  the  handling  of  the  relation  of  the  Mosaic  system 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  163 

to  Christianity.  But  these  definitions  by  no  means 
exhaust  the  Pauline  usage  of  1/0/409.  Instances  like 
o  z/d/409  TOV  0eov  (Rom.  vii.  22,  viii.  7)  —  a  general  ex- 
pression for  the  content  of  the  Mosaic  law  —  and  6 
voftos,  in  Gal.  iv.  21  and  1  Cor.  xiv.  24,  where  the  term 
denotes  the  law  considered  as  a  book,  the  Thorah,  are 
not  so  much  exceptions  to  the  general  usage  as  varia- 
tions in  the  formal  conception.  A  real  departure 
from  ordinary  usage  is  found,  however,  in  those  pas- 
sages (Rom.  iii.  19;  1  Cor.  xiv.  21)  where  o  1/0/1409 
appears  as  a  name  for  the  Old  Testament  as  a  whole. 
This  use  of  the  term  by  synecdoche  probably  had  its 
ground  in  the  popular  Jewish  view  of  the  law  as  the 
pre-eminent  revelation  of  the  divine  will,  and  was  no 
doubt  sanctioned  by  the  ordinary  modes  of  speech. 
The  paramount  authority  which  the  Pharisees  assigned 
to  the  law  would  easily  explain  this  form  of  expres- 
sion, especially  since  the  legal  spirit  in  religion  which 
was  so  characteristic  of  this  sect  would  naturally  in- 
vest the  whole  Old  Testament  literature  with  kindred 
associations. 

The  passages  in  which  Paul  considers  that  natural 
analogue  to  the  Mosaic  law  which  the  Gentiles  possess 
in  their  consciences,  and  where  he  speaks  of  their  hav- 
ing the  work  of  the  law  (TO  epyov  TOV  vopov)  written  on 
their  hearts  (Rom.  ii.  14),  and  even  supposes  the  case 
of  their  keeping  the  righteous  requirements  of  the 
law  (TO,  StKaia)fjLara  TOV  vopov,  ii.  26),  have  sometimes 
been  referred  to  as  examples  of  a  special  usage.  They 
are  so  considered  by  Grafe,  who  says  that  in  these 


164  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

instances  "  Paul  applies  the  term  [1/6/109]  in  a  wider 
signification  to  the  natural  moral  consciousness  of 
the  heathen." 1  This  view  appears  to  me  incorrect. 
In  both  these  passages,  6  1/6/109  is  the  Mosaic  law  and 
nothing  else.  The  point  of  the  apostle  is  that  not 
outward  possession  of  the  law,  but  inward  obedience 
avails  with  God.  Now,  if  the  Gentiles  do  that  which 
corresponds  to  the  moral  requirements  of  the  Mosaic 
system  (6  1/0/109),  even  though  they  do  not  possess 
that  system,  they  would  surpass  the  Jews  themselves 
in  the  approval  of  God,  since  they  (the  Jews),  though 
possessors  and  hearers  of  the  law,  are  not  doers  of  it. 
Paul  does  not  apply  the  term  "  law  "  to  the  "  natural 
moral  consciousness  of  the  heathen,"  but  only  sup- 
poses the  case  of  their  doing  better  than  the  Jews 
the  requirements  of  the  Mosaic  law  by  the  meio 
guidance  of  that  natural  moral  consciousness. 

A  group  of  passages  remains  which  forms  an  excep- 
tion to  the  prevailing  and  characteristic  usage  which 
has  been  defined.  Paul  sometimes  used  the  word 
"  law "  as  a  formal  term  denoting  a  principle,  force, 
or  order  of  working.  The  context  and  the  defining 
clauses  employed  render  clear  his  meaning  in  these 
passages,  and  prevent  confusion.  In  Gal.  vi.  2,  where  he 
exhorts  his  readers  to  bear  one  another's  burdens  and 
so  to  fulfil  "  the  law  of  Christ "  (6  1/6/409  rov  Xpia-Tov), 
his  meaning  evidently  is  that  the  principle  which 
Christ  commanded  and  illustrated  in  his  life  requires 
his  disciples  to  share  the  cares  and  troubles  of  others. 
1  Die  paulinische  Lehre  vom  Gesetz,  p.  3. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  165 

In  Romans  are  found  many  similar  examples  :  "  Where, 
then,  is  boasting  ?  It  has  been  excluded.  By  what 
law  [or  principle]  ?  Of  works  ?  No,  but  by  a  law  of 
faith  [Sta  vopov  Triarrews]  "  (Rom.  iii.  27).  In  this 
general  sense  of  the  word  there  is  a  j/o/xo?  Trio-Tew?,  —  a 
principle  or  order  of  faith,  as  opposed  to  that  of  works. 
The  most  striking  example  of  this  usage  is  found  in 
the  description  of  the  conflict  between  the  better  self, 
the  "  inner  man,"  and  sin  in  Rom.  vii.  7  sq.,  especially 
in  verse  23  :  "  But  I  find  another  law  [erepov  v6fj.ov]  in 
my  members  warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind 
[T&>  vofjiw  TOV  z/oo'?]  and  making  me  captive  to  the  law 
of  sin  [eV  TOO  i/o/tw  XT)?  a/iapria?]  which  is  in  my  mem- 
bers." This  "  other  law,"  or  "  law  of  sin,"  is  the  bind- 
ing power  of  evil,  the  reign  of  sin  which  has  estab- 
lished itself  in  the  flesh,  and  which  antagonizes  the 
"  law  of  God  "  (voftq)  #eoO,  verse  25)  to  which  the  de- 
sires consent,  and  with  which  the  "  law  of  the  mind," 
the  order  and  authority  of  reason  and  judgment,  is  in 
harmony. 

With  this  general  account  of  the  apostle's  use  of 
the  term  "  law,"  we  may,  for  our  present  purpose,  re- 
turn to  his  prevailing  application  of  it  to  the  Mosaic 
system,  and  inquire  more  particularly  into  his  view 
of  its  nature  and  purpose. 

Paul  designates  by  "  the  law "  the  whole  Mosaic 
code.  His  teaching  respecting  the  law,  therefore, 
applies  to  the  Mosaic  legislation  as  a  whole.  The 
division  of  the  law  into  moral  and  ceremonial  portions 
is  not  made  in  Paul's  writings,  and  is  a  modern 


166  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

classification.  The  view  which  Holsten  maintains, 
that  the  ritual  portions  of  the  system  did  not,  accord- 
ing to  Paul,  belong  to  the  substance  of  the  law, 
is  destitute  of  all  evidence,  and  wholly  improbable 
in  itself.  In  sketching  the  Jewish  mode  of  life,  lie 
refers,  in  Gal.  iv.  10,  to  the  observance  of  "  months 
and  seasons  and  years,"  and  in  Rorn.  ix.  4,  ascribes 
to  Israel  as  one  of  its  distinguishing  possessions  the 
ceremonial  cultus  (f)  Xarpeta).  It  is  almost  incon- 
ceivable that  if  he  had  made  this  distinction  in 
thinking  of  the  law,  he  should  not  have  used  it 
ha  his  controversy  with  the  Judaizing  Christians, 
against  whose  positions  it  could  have  been  turned 
to  good  account.  Hence  he  who  insists  upon  con- 
tinuing under  the  law  rather  than  under  the  gra- 
cious system  of  the  gospel  (cf.  Rom.  vi.  14),  thereby 
binds  himself  to  obey  the  law  as  a  whole  (Gal.  v.  3), 
since  the  distinctive  principle  of  the  law  is, "  Cursed 
is  every  one  that  continueth  not  in  all  things  that 
are  written  in  the  book  of  the  law,  to  do  them" 
(Gal.  iii.  10). 

The  bearing  of  this  point  upon  the  fulfilment  of  the 
law  in  the  gospel  is  important.  It  necessitates  the 
view  that  upon  the  apostle's  principles  the  law  as  a 
whole  is  done  away  in  Christianity.  The  common 
opinion  that  the  ritual  portions  of  the  system  were 
abrogated  and  the  ethical  portions  were  left  unaf- 
fected by  the  gospel  cannot  be  harmonized  with  Paul's 
statements  on  the  subject.  All  parts  of  the  law  were 
fulfilled  in  the  same  sense ;  their  ideal  and  permanent 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  167 

contents  of  truth  were  developed,  applied,  and  en- 
forced. All  parts  of  it  were  done  away  in  the  same 
sense ;  their  provisional  and  imperfect  elements, 
whether  ritual,  ethical,  or  civil,  fell  into  abeyance 
in  that  progressive  course  of  divine  revelation  which 
culminated  in  the  teaching  and  work  of  Christ. 
Paul's  conception  of  the  law  as  a  unit  did  not,  of 
course,  preclude  his  emphasizing,  according  to  his 
purpose,  certain  elements  or  phases  of  the  law  which 
we  properly  distinguish  from  others,  as  when,  in 
Rom.  ii.  14,  26,  he  supposes  a  doing  of  the  law  by 
heathen,  or  in  Gal.  v.  14,  and  Rom.  xiii.  9,  10,  he 
declares  love  to  be  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  In  these 
cases  he  must  have  been  thinking  of  the  law  in  its 
ethical  requirements, —  perhaps,  in  the  first  instance, 
distinctively  of  the  Decalogue. 

Paul  teaches  that  the  law  was  divine  in  its  origin, 
and  in  its  nature  "  holy  and  righteous  and  good " 
(Rom.  vii.  12).  It  was  "  ordained  through  angels  by 
the  hand  of  a  mediator  "  (Gal.  iii.  19),  and  is  "  spir- 
itual" (TTi/ev/zart/co?,  Rom.  vii.  14).  In  his  argument  to 
show  how  the  law  quickens  the  consciousness  of  sin, 
he  is  careful  to  guard  against  the  view  that  this  fact 
is  due  to  any  moral  defect  in  the  law  itself.1  "  What 
shall  we  say  then  ?  Is  the  law  sin  ?  God  forbid  " 
(Rom.  vii.  7).  In  urging  the  contrast  between  the 
principles  and  effects  of  the  legal  system  and  those 
of  the  gracious  system  of  promise,  he  maintains  that 
there  is  no  conflict  between  them.  "  Is  the  law  then 
against  the  promises  of  God  ?  God  forbid "  (GaL 


168  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

iii.  21).  The  true  relation  of  the  law  to  the  gospel 
is  that  of  a  subordinate  position  and  preparatory 
office.  The  two  come  into  collision  only  when  this 
position  and  office  of  the  law  are  misunderstood,  and 
the  law  is  regarded  as  a  means  of  salvation,  which 
in  itself  it  never  was  and  never  can  be.  The  under- 
lying principles  of  the  gospel  —  grace,  faith,  and 
promise  (Gal.  iii.  6-9 ;  Rom.  iv.  13-17)  —  antedate 
the  law,  and  have  from  the  first  been  operative  in 
salvation.  The  law  was  a  subsequent  dispensation, 
coming  in  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after  the 
gracious  covenant  with  Abraham  which  he  accepted 
in  faith.  This  primitive  gospel,  which  is  identical  in 
principle  with  the  Christian  gospel,  the  later  and  sup- 
plemental system  can  by  no  means  "  disannul,  so  as 
to  make  the  promise  of  none  effect  "  (Gal.  iii.  17).  It 
cannot  itself  become  a  means  of  reconciliation  with 
God,  but  remains  subordinate  to  that  primal  and  un- 
changed order  of  salvation  whose  source  is  grace  and 
whose  condition  is  faith.  The  law  was  designed  to 
emphasize  the  need  of  gracious  forgiveness,  and  to 
impel  men  to  seek  it  through  Christ.  Accordingly 
it  was  added  (Trpoa-eredr),  Gal.  iii.  19 ;  cf.  Rom.  v.  20) 
to  the  dispensation  of  grace  and  promise  as  auxiliary 
to  it,  in  tbe  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 

A  careful  reading  of  Romans  and  Galatians  dis- 
closes a  considerable  difference  of  tone  in  the  refer- 
ences to  the  law  in  the  two  epistles.  In  the  latter 
there  is  an  apparent  disparagement  of  the  law  which 
is  wholly  wanting  in  the  former.  Paul  describes  the 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  169 

condition  of  the  Jewish  Christians  before  their  con- 
version  as  a  state  of  "  bondage  under  the  rudiments  of 
the  world"  (Yo  a-roi^eia  rov  Ko<r/j,ov,  Gal.  iv.  3),  an<? 
their  present  disposition  to  return  to  the  observance 
of  the  law  as  a  turning  back  again  to  "  the  weak  and 
beggarly  rudiments  "  (ra  acrdevr)  teal  Trrwya  a-roi^eta^ 
Gal.  iv.  9).  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  these  ex- 
pressions he  treats  the  law  as  representing  an  ele- 
mentary stage  of  religion,  and  those  who  still  adhered 
to  it  as  holding  to  a  system  which  was  weak  and  poor 
in  comparison  with  Christianity. 

The  difference  to  which  we  have  alluded,  however, 
finds  a  sufficient  explanation  in  the  differing  occasion 
and  purpose  of  the  two  letters.  In  the  Galatian 
epistle  Paul  was  compelled  to  defend  the  validity  of 
his  apostleship  and  the  truth  of  his  teaching  against 
fanatical  Judaizers  who  insisted  that  Christians  must 
become  Jews.  The  letter  is  therefore  intensely  po- 
lemic. He  must  argue  against  adherence  to  the  law 
in  the  way  in  which  it  was  advocated  by  these  op- 
ponents. "  If  ye  receive  circumcision,"  he  said, 
"  Christ  will  profit  you  nothing  "  (Gal.  v.  2), — an  ex- 
pression which  seems  to  imply  an  absolute  incompati- 
bility between  circumcision  and  Christianity.  It  must 
be  remembered,  however,  that  the  opponents  who  urged 
the  necessity  of  circumcision  advocated  it  as  an  essen-. 
tial  condition  of  salvation.  It  was  not  against  cir« 
cumcision  as  such  that  Paul  waged  his  polemic,  but 
against  it  when  put  forth  as  a  rival  or  co-ordinate 
condition  of  salvation  with  faith  in  Christ.  That  he 


170  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

made  no  objection  to  circumcision  in  itself  is  evident 
not  only  from  the  fact  that  he  consented  to  the  cir- 
cumcision of  Timothy  (Acts  xvi.  3),  but  from  his 
language  in  other  connections  (Rom.  ii.  25),  and  from 
the  assertion  in  this  epistle  that  "  neither  is  cir- 
cumcision anything,  nor  uncircumcision,  but  a  new 
creature  "  (Gal.  vi.  15).  There  cannot  be  two  ways  of 
salvation.  If  faith  in  Christ  is  the  true  way,  then 
circumcision  and  deeds  of  obedience  to  the  law  are 
excluded.  Against  those  who  insist  upon  this  leg»l 
observance  as  necessary,  the  apostle  must  urge  with 
all  strenuousness  that  they,  in  so  doing,  fall  down 
upon  a  lower  plane  and  return  to  a  comparatively 
rudimentary  stage  of  revelation,  making  its  require- 
ments equal  or  superior  to  those  which  have  been 
revealed  in  God's  fullest  manifestation  of  his  will  in 
Christ.  Among  the  Romans,  on  the  contrary,  these 
extreme  Judaizing  tendencies  did  not  exist.  They 
were  indeed  liable  to  misapprehend  the  relation  of 
the  law  to  the  gospel ;  and  the  apostle  in  his  epistle 
to  them  entered  at  length  into  the  discussion  of  the 
subject,  but  rather  for  the  purpose  of  edification  and 
instruction  than  for  the  refutation  of  zealous  and 
dangerous  fanatics  who  from  mistaken  reverence  for 
the  law  were  perverting  the  central  principles  of  the 
gospel.  In  discussing  this  different  tone  of  the  two 
epistles  in  the  treatment  of  the  law,  Grafe  justly 
remarks :  — 

"  We  can  understand  such  differences  only  when  we 
recognize  and  appreciate  the  fact  that  Paul  is  not,  as  he 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  171 

is  often  so  urgently  asserted  to  be,  the  abstract  logician 
and  severe  systemizer  who  develops  all  his  statements 
with  strict  consequence  out  of  a  ready-made  and  fixed 
theory.  No !  In  all  his  action,  thinking,  and  writing, 
Paul,  like  every  forcible  religious  personality,  is,  first  of 
all,  intensely  interested  in  the  matter  which  he  presents. 
His  heart  wishes  to  win  the  opponent,  to  bring  him  over 
to  his  own  position  by  every  means  at  his  command."  l 

Paul's  doctrine  of  the  law  is  developed  from  a 
purely  Christological  point  of  view.  His  aim  is  to 
show  how  it  prepared  the  way  for  Christ  by  deepen- 
ing the  sense  of  sin  and  sharpening  the  desire  for 
salvation.  The  historic  purpose  of  the  law,  to  check 
transgressions  and  secure  an  upright  life,  he  nowhere 
dwells  upon.  It  cannot,  however,  be  said  that  he 
does  not  incidentally  recognize  it.  For  example,  in 
Rom.  vii.  10,  he  refers  to  "  the  commandment  which 
was  unto  life  "  (j)  evro\r)  17  ei<?  ^wrfv)  ;  that  is,  which 
was  ordained  unto  or  aimed  at  securing  life.  In 
Rom.  viii.  3,  4,  he  shows  that  what  the  law  could  not 
do,  God  accomplished  by  sending  his  Son,  in  order 
that  "  the  ordinance  of  the  law  [TO  BiKaiw/j-a  TOV 
VOIJLOV\  might  be  fulfilled  in  us  who  walk  not  after 
the  flesh,  but  after  the  spirit."  The  ordinance,  or 
righteous  requirement  of  the  law,  is  that  just  action 
which  the  law  contemplates  and  seeks  to  secure, 
although,  for  reasons  to  be  separately  considered,  it 
was  not  able  to  secure  it.  The  law,  then,  in  the 
apostle's  view,  had  as  one  of  its  aims  to  enforce  upon 
1  Die  paul.  Lehre  vom  Gesetz,  pp.  22,  23. 


172  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

human  life  the  righteous  demands  which  it  pro- 
claimed. This  is  further  recognized  in  1  Tim.  i.  9 : 
"  Knowing  this,  that  law  is  not  made  for  a  righteous 
man,  but  for  the  lawless  and  unruly,  for  the  ungodly 
and  sinners,"  etc.  Here  the  statement  is  general, 
i/o/Lto?  not  having  the  article  ;  but  the  Mosaic  system  is, 
most  probably,  the  typical  case  in  mind,  and  is  cer- 
tainly included  in  the  statement  made  regarding  the 
purpose  of  law  to  restrain  from  evil  and  incite  to 
righteousness. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Paul  makes  allusion  only  in- 
cidentally to  the  ordinary  object  of  the  law  which 
the  Jews  recognized.  He  nowhere  dwells  upon  it  at 
length  or  treats  it  as  important.  This  commonly 
recognized  aim  of  the  law  has  become  in  his  mind 
wholly  subordinate  to  another,  in  which  it  stands  more 
closely  related  to  the  work  of  Christ ;  that  aim  is  to 
rouse  sin  into  action  as  conscious  transgression,  and 
thus  to  show  men  their  helplessness  and  need  of  gra- 
cious forgiveness  through  Christ.  This  idea  Paul 
had  evidently  developed  in  connection  with  his  own 
experience.  We  must  seek  its  genesis  in  that  con- 
flict which  he  has  portrayed  in  Rom.  vii.  7  «<?., —  the 
passage  in  which  he  has  most  fully  described  this 
negative  and  preparatory  office  of  the  law.  There 
was  a  time,  he  says,  when  he  dwelt  in  a  sense  of  safety 
and  repose ;  his  conscience  was  quiet  and  peaceful,  but 
it  was  because  the  sense  of  sin  was  inactive  and  dormant. 
He  was  relatively  unconscious  of  evil  desires ;  his 
mind  rested  in  false  security.  This  was  not  because 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  173 

sin  was  absent,  but  because  it  was  "  dead."  The 
moral  stupor  in  which  he  was  living  made  him  insen- 
sible to  the  powers  of  evil  that  slept  within  him,  and 
which  needed  only  an  occasion  to  exert  themselves 
with  unsuspected  energy.  That  occasion  came  when 
the  law  confronted  him  with  its  demands.  He  then 
saw  himself  in  it  as  in  a  mirror.  It  aroused  him  to  a 
sense  of  his  real  situation ;  it  awakened  the  sleeping 
power  of  sin  within  him ;  it  disclosed  to  him  his  moral 
impotence.  He  now  became  conscious  of  his  sinfulness 
as  he  had  never  been  before ;  and  that  sin  which  dwelt 
within  him  was  excited  to  new  energy  of  action  by 
the  law,  which  opposed  and  rebuked  it.  The  result 
was  an  increasing  conflict  between  the  reason,  or 
moral  judgment,  which  recognized  the  law's  demands 
as  right,  and  the  dominating  impulses  of  evil  within 
him,  which  perpetually  led  him  into  captivity  to  sin 
and  seemed  to  cut  off  all  hope  of  victory  for  the  better 
desires.  What  purpose  did  the  law  serve  in  this  ex- 
perience ?  It  did  not  conduct  him  to  peace  ;  it  could 
do  nothing  but  intensify  the  power  of  sin  arid  deepen 
his  sense  of  it.  It  could  not  justify;  it  could  not  save. 
Rather  "  the  commandment  which  was  unto  life," 
which  in  its  ideal  purpose  was  designed  to  conduct  to 
life,  and  which  in  itself  was  fitted  to  attain  that  end, 
was,  in  actual  fact,  in  his  experience  "  found  to  be 
unto  death  "  (Rom.  vii.  10) ;  that  is,  it  pronounced  the 
death-sentence  upon  him,  because  it  disclosed  to  him 
his  sinfulness  and  condemned  it,  but  could  afford  him 
no  deliverance  from  the  power  and  guilt  of  his  sin. 


174  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

Hence  Paul  concludes  that  the  chief  purpose  and  use 
of  the  law,  after  all,  is  to  show  men  their  sinfulness 
and  thus  to  drive  them  to  Christ.  It  was  his  own 
experience  of  dissatisfaction  and  unrest  of  soul  as  a 
Pharisee  which  formed  the  basis  of  his  characteristic 
doctrine  that  the  law  was  given  to  make  transgres- 
sions abound,  in  order  that  men  might  be  led  by  a 
consciousness  of  sin  and  a  sense  of  their  inability  to 
overcome  it,  to  resort  to  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ 
through  which  alone  they  could  find  deliverance.  It 
was  the  hopelessness  of  success  in  the  effort  to  attain 
peace  by  deeds  of  legal  obedience,  which  he  had  him- 
self experienced,  that  led  Paul  to  deny  that  such 
peace  was  attainable  by  the  legal  method.  If,  then,  it 
was  not  thus  attainable,  and  the  law  had  power  only 
to  deepen  the  consciousness  of  sin  and  intensify  its 
energy,  it  became  evident  to  Paul  that  this  was  the 
chief  purpose  of  the  law,  and  that  its  purpose  to  secure 
righteousness  was  rather  to  be  regarded  as  its  remote 
aim,  which,  in  actual  fact,  could  be  realized  only 
through  the  gospel.  Its  first  object  was  to  shut  men 
up  in  ward  until  the  deliverer  Christ  should  set  them 
free,  and  thus  through  him  the  ordinance  of  the  law 
should  be  fulfilled  in  those  who  live  under  the  power 
of  the  Spirit.  Thus  to  Paul  the  immediate  aim  of  the 
law  is  seen  in  this  negative  and  preparatory  office 
of  revealing  to  men  their  sins ;  and  its  historic  and 
ideal  end  is  attained  only  when  the  law  has  driven 
men  to  Christ,  and  the  true  righteousness  which  the 
law  contemplates  is  secured  in  the  Christian  life  of 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  175 

the  Spirit.  Before  proceeding  further,  it  is  necessary 
more  precisely  to  define  this  characteristic  teaching 
of  Paul  regarding  the  relation  of  the  law  to  sin. 

This  peculiar  doctrine  meets  us  only  in  the  Epistles 
to  the  Galatians  and  the  Romans.  In  addition  to  the 
elaboration  of  it  in  connection  with  his  experience 
under  the  law  in  Rom.  vii.  7  sq.,  —  an  exposition 
which  may  be  called  his  psychological  argument, — 
he  has  developed  this  view  in  a  historical  manner 
by  appeal  to  the  case  of  Abraham.  In  Rom.  iv.  and 
Gal.  iii.  he  shows  that  Abraham  was  justified  by 
faith,  not  by  works.  He  received  the  gracious  cove- 
nant of  promise  before  he  received  the  covenant  of 
circumcision  (Rom.  iv.  10-13).  He  was  justified 
under  the  gracious  dispensation  long  before  the  law 
came  into  existence  (Gal.  iii.  17, 18).  It  is  certain, 
therefore,  that  the  law  was  not  necessary  to  secure 
justification,  and  could  never  have  been  intended  to 
secure  it;  it  must  have  had  another  purpose.  "It 
was  added  because  of  transgressions  [rwv  7rapa/3do-€Q>v 
X^ptv]  till  the  seed  should  come,"  etc.  (Gal.  iii.  19) ; 
that  is,  its  purpose  was  not  to  justify  from  sin,  which 
it  never  did  or  could  do,  but  to  develop  the  conscious- 
ness of  sin,  intensify  its  power  in  the  conscience,  make 
men  aware  of  their  condemnation  and  guilt  on  account 
of  it,  and  so  to  lead  them  to  Christ  for  gracious  for- 
giveness. The  law  thus  plays  the  part  of  a  tutor 
who  puts  men  under  severe  discipline  in  preparing 
them  for  the  freedom  which  awaits  them  when  they 
shall  enter  by  faith  into  relation  to  Christ  (Gal,  iii.  24). 


176  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

So  far,  then,  from  the  law  being  a  means  of  justi- 
fication, it  is  almost  the  opposite,  since  "  through  the 
law  cometh  the  knowledge  of  sin  "  (Rom.  iii.  20) ;  so 
far  from  being  able  to  deliver  from  sin,  it  rather  in- 
creases its  power  and  welds  its  fetters  closer  upon 
mankind.  It  condemns  instead  of  delivering ;  and  its 
direct  purpose  was  to  condemn,  that  through  the 
sense  of  guilt  the  sinner  might  be  guided  to  Christ 
for  deliverance.  Hence  "  the  law  came  in  beside " 
(that  is,  beside  the  sin  which  was  working  and  spread- 
ing in  the  world),  "that  the  trespass  might  abound; 
but  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  abound  more  ex- 
ceedingly" (Rom.  v.  20).  Thus  the  apostle  draws 
from  the  typical  case  of  Abraham's  justification,  apart 
from  the  law-system,  the  same  conclusion  to  which 
his  experience  of  the  futility  of  seeking  justification 
by  the  law  had  led  him ;  namely,  that  the  law  was 
never  intended  for  that  purpose,  except  so  far  as  by 
developing  the  power  of  sin,  it  indirectly  leads  men 
to  Christ,  who  does  for  men  "  what  the  law  could  not 
do  "  (TO  aSvvarov  rov  vofiov,  Rom.  viii.  3). 

The  same  conviction  is  forced  upon  the  apostle's 
mind  from  another  point  of  view.  The  incompati- 
bility of  the  idea  of  meritorious  salvation  by  legal 
obedience  and  the  idea  of  gracious  justification  by 
faith  compels  a  choice  between  these  two  principles. 
In  connection  with  the  demonstration  from  the  Old 
Testament  that  the  law  never  has  justified  men,  there 
is  added  the  consideration  that  such  a  legal  justifica- 
tion, if  conceived  to  be  possible,  would  exclude  and 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  177 

nullify  the  most  characteristic  truth  of  the  gospel 
that  salvation  is  of  grace,  and  has  been  effected  for 
men  by  the  death  of  Christ,  whose  benefits  are  appro- 
priated by  an  act  of  trust.  "  If  there  had  been  a  law- 
given  which  could  make  alive,  verily  righteousness 
would  have  been  of  the  law"  (Gal.  iii.  21).  There 
would  have  been  no  gospel-system  if  justification  by 
the  law  had  been  possible.  The  very  existence  of  the 
gospel,  therefore,  proves  that  the  law  was  not  intended 
to  justify,  but  must  have  had  some  other  object.  "  If 
righteousness  is  through  the  law,  then  Christ  died  for 
naught "  (Gal.  ii.  21),  but  the  supposition  that  Christ 
should  die  for  naught  is  absurd ;  hence  the  law  was 
not  intended  to  secure  righteousness  to  men,  but  to 
increase  sin. 

In  what  sense  did  the  apostle  hold  that  it  was  the 
purpose  and  effect  of  the  law  to  increase  sin  ?  Was 
it  to  increase  sin  merely  in  men's  consciousness  of  it, 
—  to  increase  it  subjectively  ?  He  certainly  teaches 
this :  "  Through  the  law  cometh  the  knowledge  of 
sin ; "  "I  had  not  known  sin  except  through  the 
law  ; "  "  Apart  from  the  law  sin  is  dead ; "  "  But  sin 
that  it  might  be  shown  to  be  sin  by  working  death  to 
me  through  that  which  is  good  [the  law]  ;  that 
through  the  commandment  sin  might  become  exceeding 
sinful"  (Rom.  iii.  20;  vii.  7,  8,  13).  But  does  the 
law  also  increase  sin  actually  and  objectively  ?  To 
this  it  must  be  answered  that  in  Paul's  view  the  law 
calls  out  and  develops  sin  into  unwonted  strength  by 
arousing  sinful  desires  which  were  before  latent  in 

12 


178  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

men,  and  thus  sharpening  the  opposition  between  in- 
dwelling sin  and  the  law's  righteous  demands.  The 
a/ia/ma,  which  is  often  latent  or  "  dead,"  is  roused 
into  activity  and  intensity,  and  in  that  sense  in- 
creased ;  it  is  developed  into  open  opposition,  and  is 
brought  out  into  actual  transgression.  "  Where  there 
is  no  law,  neither  is  there  transgression  [-Trapa/Sacr*?] ," 
(Rom.  iv.  15) ;  without  law  there  is  a^apria,  but 
not  7rapd(3a<ri<;.  The  law  does  not  increase  sin,  con- 
sidered as  an  indwelling  principle,  but  it  increases  it 
in  its  manifestation,  in  its  activity  and  expression  as 
transgression.  Sin  (afuipria)  wrought  in  him,  he 
says,  through  the  operation  of  the  commandment,  all 
manner  of  coveting  (Rom.  vii.  8) ;  "  when  the  com- 
mandment came,  sin  revived,"  awakened  into  new 
energy  and  activity.  This  actual  effect  of  the  law  in 
increasing  the  expression  of  sin  in  transgression,  Paul 
declares  to  be  the  very  purpose  of  the  system :  "  The 
law  came  in  alongside  [of  the  power  of  a/juaprla]  that 
the  trespass  might  abound  [tW  7r\eovdo"ij  TO  Trapd- 
TTTto/Lia],"  (Rom.  v.  20).  The  purpose  of  the  law  was 
not  that  dfjMpria  as  a  principle  and  pervading  power 
might  be  increased  in  the  world,  but  that  it  might 
be  brought  out  in  the  character  of  irapd^aa^^  and 
its  latent  and  deadly  power  thus  shown;  that  the 
TTapaTTrw/jM  —  the  open  transgression  of  law  —  might 
reveal  the  depth  and  danger  of  the  sinful  principle  of 
which  it  was  the  expression,  in  order  that  men  might 
be  led  to  seek  deliverance  from  its  power  by  the 
grace  of  Christ.  The  apostle's  view  is  that  the  law, 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  179 

by  creating  a  reaction  in  the  sinful  mind  against  itself, 
intensifies  the  power  of  sin  and  increases  its  manifes- 
tation both  in  the  consciousness  and  in  actual  trans- 
gression. If  by  sin,  then,  is  meant  transgression  of 
law  in  outward  act,  the  law  increases  sin ;  but  it  can- 
not be  shown  that  Paul  considers  the  law  to  have  had 
the  purpose  or  effect  of  adding  to  the  inherent  energy 
of  the  sinful  principle  which  pervades  human  nature 
and  is  the  root  of  sinful  actions. 

The  next  inquiry  is  :  On  what  ground  does  he  affirm 
the  inability  of  the  law  to  justify,  and  why  does  he 
feel  himself  required  to  find  some  other  purpose  of 
its  existence  than  that  of  saving  men  ?  Neander  an- 
swers this  question  by  saying  that  man  is  incompe- 
tent to  perform  the  epja  vopov  in  their  ideal  sense 
and  content,  and  that  these  works,  considered  em- 
pirically, do  not  represent  a  morality  adequate  to 
meet  the  divine  requirements,  but  rather  "  bear  the 
impress  of  mere  legality  in  opposition  to  true  piety 
and  morality." l  There  would  thus  be  a  double  rea- 
son why  the  law  cannot  justify.  The  power  of  sin 
absolutely  precludes  a  perfect  obedience ;  and  even 
such  obedience  as  is  rendered  is  wanting  in  moral 
value,  because  in  the  unrenewed  man  it  does  not 
spring  from  the  right  motives  and  disposition.  Ne- 
ander is  careful  to  add,  in  the  same  connection,  that 
the  law's  inability  to  justify  is  not  due  to  ethical  de- 
fects in  the  law  itself  considered  as  a  system  of 
morals.  "The  single  commandment  of  love,  which 

1  Planting  and  Training,  Bohn  ed.  i.  419 ;  Am.  ed.  p.  385. 


180  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

stands  at  the  head  of  the  i^o/uo?  (Rom.  xiii.  9),  contains 
in  fact  everything  essential  to  moral  perfection ;  and 
whoever  fulfilled  this  would  be  righteous."  It  is 
certainly  true  that  Paul  denies  to  the  law  as  an  out- 
ward, prescriptive  authority  the  power  to  give  life 
(2  Cor.  iii.  6)  or  confer  the  ability  to  keep  its  com- 
mands. The  law  is  indeed  perfect  in  its  own  nature 
and  purpose,  but  these  do  not  include  the  ability  to 
impart  new  life  or  secure  righteousness.  In  the  state- 
ment of  his  "empirical"  reason  for  the  failure  of  man 
to  be  justified  by  law,  Neander  appears  to  have  ad- 
vanced beyond  Paul's  point  of  view.  It  is  no  doubt 
true  that  man's  sinfulness  renders  imperfect  such 
works  of  obedience  as  he  may  do ;  but  these  works, 
so  far  as  they  go,  are  not  thought  of  by  the  apostle  as 
morally  worthless,  but  rather  as  insufficient.  In  Phil, 
iii.  6,  to  which  Neander  refers,  Paul  states  that  he  was 
regarded  as  "  blameless  "  in  legal  obedience  by  his 
Pharisaic  associates  rather  than  that  he  really  was  so, 
and  yet  as  a  Christian  he  afterward  saw  all  his  obedi- 
ence to  have  been  morally  valueless.  It  is  certainly 
the  impossibility  of  an  adequate  obedience  to  the  law 
rather  than  any  inherent  imperfection  of  such  obedi- 
ence as  is  rendered  which,  to  the  apostle's  mind,  makes 
futile  the  hope  of  justification  by  legal  works.  Nean- 
der's  two  reasons  seem  easily  reducible  to  one.  Usteri 
maintains  that  the  Mosaic  system  represented  legality 
rather  than  morality,  and  hence  could  not  justify : 
"  In  the  express  denial  that  righteousness  before  God 
could  be  attained  by  the  method  of  legal  obedience 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  181 

lies  a  denial  and  renunciation  of  legal  Judaism  as  a 
whole,  the  assertion  of  its  inadequacy  and  the  demand 
for  a  higher  stage  of  morality  than  that  which  the 
law  represented. " 1 

It  is  important  clearly  to  understand  that  there  is 
no  incompetency  on  the  part  of  the  law  to  justify, 
resulting  from  defects  inhering  in  the  law  itself  as  a 
rule  of  life.  There  is  therefore  no  reason,  except 
such  as  exists  in  man  himself,  why  he  may  not  be 
saved  by  the  law.  So  far  from  this,  Paul  distinctly 
maintains  that  the  law  would  justify  those  who  should 
perfectly  obey  it.  "  He  that  doeth  them  shall  live  in 
them"  (Gal.  iii.  12)  is  the  principle  which  applies; 
and  the  impossibility  of  success  on  this  principle  does 
not  lie  in  the  inadequacy  or  incompetency  of  the  law, 
but  in  the  inability  of  men  perfectly  to  obey  it. 
"  Moses  writeth  that  the  man  that  doeth  the  right- 
eousness which  is  of  the  law  shall  live  thereby" 
(Rom.  x.  5).  Paul  quotes  these  passages  to  remind 
his  readers  that  only  "the  doers  of  a  law  shall  be 
justified  "  (Rom.  ii.  13),  in  order  that  they  may  clearly 
understand  how  rigorous  are  the  terms  on  which 
justification  by  merit  is  to  be  obtained,  and  how  fruit- 
less will  be  the  effort,  since  nothing  less  than  a  com- 
plete obedience  will  avail.  But  such  an  obedience 
would  avail,  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  defect  in 
the  law  which  makes  it  unable  to  justify;  the  defect 
which  makes  failure  certain  is  solely  in  man  himself. 
This  is  made  clear  by  Rom.  viii.  3 :  "  For  what  the 
1  PaiUin.  Lehrbegrijf,  p.  52. 


182  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

law  could  not  do,  in  that  it  was  weak  through  the 
flesh  [eV  o5  rja-Oevet  Sia  T%  0-ap/cov],  God,  sending  his 
own  son,"  etc.,  accomplished.  The  "  flesh "  here  is 
not  a  name  for  the  weakness  of  the  law  itself,  but 
denotes  the  sinful  element  in  man  which,  as  was 
shown  in  chapter  vii.  7  »<?.,  prevents  the  law,  which 
was  ideally  "  unto  life,"  from  having  the  effect  to  se- 
cure life,  and  occasions  the  development  of  sin  in  man 
instead.  The  flesh,  which  is,  strictly  speaking,  the 
seat  of  sin  in  man,  and  thus  becomes  identified  with 
sin,  reacts  against  the  law,  and  renders  it  powerless 
to  attain  the  end  which  it  was  primarily  designed  to 
secure.  The  attainment  of  this  aim,  however,  is  ren- 
dered impracticable  merely  by  human  sinfulness, 
whose  universality  and  power  render  justification  by 
means  of  the  law,  as  matter  of  fact,  impossible.  It 
is  not  correct,  therefore,  to  say  that  the  law  is  incom- 
petent to  justify  ;  the  Pauline  doctrine  is  that  man  is 
incompetent  to  fulfil  the  condition  of  perfect  obedi- 
ence, and  that  on  this  account  the  way  by  the  law  is 
shut,  and  that  by  gracious  forgiveness  upon  condition 
of  faith  alone  remains  open. 

It  is  maintained  by  some 1  that  Paul's  doctrine  of 
the  law  in  its  relation  to  sin  stands  in  contradiction 
with  the  historic  purpose  of  the  system  which  the 
Jews  universally  recognized ;  namely,  to  restrain  trans- 
gression and  incite  to  righteous  conduct.  It  is  affirmed 
that  the  law  itself  never  recognized  the  aim,  which 
Paul  attributes  to  it,  of  multiplying  transgressions, 

1  For  example,  Pfleiderer,  Paulinismus,  p.  106  sq. ;  Eng.  tr.  L  86. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  183 

and  that  the  purely  negative  function  which  he  assigns 
to  the  law  is  without  any  basis  in  the  Old  Testament 
itself.  These  propositions  are  in  part  incontrover- 
tible. It  is  certain  that  Paul  has  developed  a  new 
doctrine  of  the  purpose  of  the  law  from  his  now  ac- 
cepted principle  that  faith  in  Christ  is  the  only  true 
and  effective  principle  of  salvation.  It  is  this  new 
point  of  view  concerning  Christ  which,  in  connection 
with  Paul's  experience  under  the  law,  furnished  the 
occasion  for  his  new  definition  of  the  law's  purpose. 
It  is  a  part  of  the  apostle's  development  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  grace  and  faith  as  applied  to  salvation. 
Finding  the  law  powerless  to  save  or  to  give  peace,  on 
account  of  the  dominion  of  sin  which  the  law  served 
to  intensify  rather  than  overthrow,  and  adopting  the 
principle  of  a  gracious,  as  opposed  to  a  merited,  salva- 
tion offered  through  Christ,  the  problem  would  be 
necessarily  forced  upon  his  mind,  "  What  purpose, 
then,  does  the  law  serve  ?"  Since  it  does  not  justify,  it 
can  therefore  never  have  been  expected  or  intended 
to  justify.  What,  then,  is  its  object?  In  reply  he 
elaborated  the  doctrine  of  its  relation  to  sin  which  we 
have  traced. 

Paul's  view  of  this  subject  is  only  an  element  in  his 
new  view  of  Christ.  Since  Christ  is  the  "  end  of 
the  law  "  (reXo?  VO/AOV,  Rom.  x.  4),  — that  is,  since  he 
puts  an  end  to  its  validity  and  fulfils  it  in  himself,  — 
its  purposes  must  have  terminated  upon  him  and  have 
been  in  some  way  subordinate  to  the  truths  and  prin- 
ciples of  his  gracious  salvation.  It  is  a  difficult  ques- 


184  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

tion,  which  conviction  took  logical  precedence  in  the 
mind  of  Paul,  —  the  conviction  of  the  law's  inability 
to  justify  on  account  of  human  sinfulness,  or  the  con- 
viction of  Christ's  work  as  the  sole  ground  of  justi- 
fication, from  which  the  other  conviction  would  flow- 
as  an  inference.  Holsten  and  Pfleiderer  have  elabo- 
rately developed  the  latter  opinion.  It  may  perhaps 
be  a  vain  attempt  to  define  the  relations  of  the  two 
ideas,  which  are  involved  in  each  other.  One  point, 
however,  is  clear ;  namely,  that  the  development  of 
Paul's  view  concerning  the  law  had  its  primal  motive 
in  his  personal  experience,  which  he  has  described 
in  Rom.  vii.  7  sq.,  although  it  could  have  been  fully 
wrought  out  only  by  reflection  upon  the  idea  of  an 
unmerited  acceptance  that  formed  the  positive  coun- 
terpart to  those  convictions  of  failure  and  hopeless- 
ness which  he  had  developed  in  his  efforts  at  legal 
obedience.  In  the  unfolding  of  the  doctrine  we  have, 
no  doubt,  these  two  co-operating  factors,  —  the  ex- 
perience of  the  futility  of  seeking  justification  on 
grounds  of  legal  merit,  culminating  in  the  despairing 
exclamation,  "  0  wretched  man  that  I  am,  who  shall 
deliver  me  ?  "  and  the  assured  certainty  that  the  law 
could  not  justify,  which  flowed  from  the  conviction, 
so  clear  to  Paul  since  his  conversion,  that  in  Christ 
was  the  only  ground  of  hope,  and  that  the  law  had  its 
deepest  meaning  and  truest  use  as  a  means  of  leading 
men  to  him.  I  therefore  regard  Paul's  experience 
under  the  law  as  furnishing  the  starting-point  for  his 
view  of  it,  although  that  experience  alone  could  never 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  185 

have  led  him  to  its  full  development.  It  was  only 
when  Christ  was  accepted  as  a  Saviour  that  the  whole 
problem  of  the  law's  purpose  grew  clear  to  his  mind, 
and  the  difficulties  and  perplexities  which  he  had 
felt,  as  a  Pharisee,  were  both  understood  and  relieved. 
The  genesis  of  his  doctrine  of  the  law  is  accordingly 
to  be  explained,  not  from  a  single  fact  or  principle,  — 
as,  for  example,  from  his  doctrine  of  the  cross,  —  but 
from  that  complex  and  progressive  experience  which, 
in  connection  with  reflection,  enabled  him  to  develop 
step  by  step  his  whole  system  of  doctrine.  His  dis- 
satisfaction with  himself  and  his  sense  of  failure  as 
a  Pharisee  would  never  of  itself  have  led  him  to 
the  view  which  he  has  elaborated,  but  it  remains  the 
logical  starting-point  from  which  his  mind  takes  its 
departure  from  the  common  view ;  and  when  once  the 
crisis  comes,  and  Christ  is  seen  as  Redeemer,  the  full 
development  of  the  law's  relation  to  him  is  a  necessity 
of  reflection  for  which  his  life  under  the  law  had 
already  prepared  the  way. 

The  doctrine  thus  has  its  ground  both  in  this  expe- 
rience and  in  the  acceptance  of  Jesus  as  a  Saviour ; 
that  is,  in  the  total  spiritual  history  of  the  apostle, 
in  the  organic  development  of  his  moral  life,  and  in 
the  essential  relations  between  his  pre-Christian  expe- 
rience and  his  reflection  upon  Christian  salvation  as 
accepted  by  him.  His  opinions  cannot  be  fairly  esti- 
mated or  rightly  understood  except  in  the  light  of 
those  varied,  yet  related,  experiences  and  reflections 
which  give  unity  and  continuity  to  his  life.  Hence 


186  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  necessity  which  we  have  urged  (chap,  i.)  of  find- 
ing in  his  moral  career  and  condition  as  a  Pharisee 
a  point  of  connection  for  his  Christian  teaching, 
and  of  avoiding  that  complete  sundering  of  his  life 
after  his  conversion  from  his  pre-Christian  moral 
history,  —  a  portion  of  his  career  whose  experiences 
must  have  affected  his  theology  as  profoundly  as  the 
experience  of  Augustine  before  his  conversion  affected 
the  system  which  he  subsequently  developed.1 

How  may  we  suppose  that  Paul  regarded  his  pecu- 
liar doctrine  of  the  law  in  its  relation  to  the  common 
view  of  its  aim,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  he  himself 
also  incidentally  recognizes  ?  He  has  furnished  us 
no  materials  for  a  definite  answer  to  this  question. 
He  does  not  bring  the  two  views  of  the  law  into  com- 
parison, or  in  any  way  consider  them  in  their  relations. 
He  betrays  no  consciousness  of  contradiction  between 
them,  and  no  sense  of  any  difficulty  arising  from  the 
affirmation  of  both.  It  is  possible  that  Paul  did  not 

1  The  general  view  here  taken  is  sanctioned  by  Grafe  in  his 
essay  already  cited,  although  it  is  only  briefly  touched  upon  in 
these  words  (following  an  allusion  to  Holsten's  opinion  that 
Paul's  view  of  the  law  is  an  inference  from  his  doctrine  of  the 
cross)  :  "  Wie  glauben  vielmehr,  dass  auch  ein  praktischer  Grund 
fiir  den  Apostel  mitbestimmend  gewesen  ist,  der  einerseits  ihm 
seine  logischen  Schliisse,  die  er  an  den  Tod  Christi  kniipfte,  nahe 
legte,  anderseits  seine  eigenthiimliehe  Lehre  von  dem  Verhalt- 
nisse  des  Gesetzes  zur  «rap£,  wesentlich  beeinflusste.  Diesen 
praktischen  Grund  erblicken  wir  in  der  vom  Apostel  unter 
schwersten  inneren  Kampfen  errungenen  Erfahrung  von  der  Un- 
moglichkeit,  durch  Gesetzeswerke  Gerechtigkeit  und  Frieden 
mit  Gott  zu  erlangen."  Die  paulin.  Lehre  v.  Gesetz,  p.  11. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  187 

reflect  upon  their  adjustment,  but,  in  accord  with  his 
changed  view  of  the  law,  defined  its  aim  to  be  the 
quickening  and  intensifying  of  sin,  without  considering 
whether  this  doctrine  could  be  harmonized  with  the 
idea  that  the  purpose  of  the  law  was  to  restrain  men 
from  sin,  to  check  transgressions,  and  thus  to  aid  in 
securing  righteousness  of  life,  —  the  idea  of  the  law's 
purpose  which  was  central  and  controlling  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  in  Jewish  religious  thought.  But  if 
we  consider  the  tendencies  of  Paul's  mind  to  system- 
atic thought,  the  great  prominence  which  his  new 
doctrine  of  the  law  assumes,  and  the  fulness  with 
which  it  is  set  forth,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  the 
problem  of  the  relation  of  those  two  aims  of  the  law, 
so  evidently  different  and  even  apparently  inconsis- 
tent, could  have  escaped  his  attention.  How,  then, 
can  he  have  supposed  that  the  statement  that  the 
law,  if  kept,  would  justify  and  save,  and  the  proposi- 
tion that  the  law  was  not  given  to  save,  but  to  deepen 
the  knowledge  of  sin  and  to  intensify  its  power,  could 
both  be  maintained  or  made  to  agree  together  ?  Can 
they,  on  Pauline  principles,  be  harmonized  with  each 
other  ? 

The  problem  can  only  be  solved  by  the  recognition 
of  Paul's  principle  that  the  gospel  —  that  is,  the  gra- 
cious promise  of  God  implying  faith  as  the  condition  of 
its  acceptance  and  fulfilment  —  antedated  and  under- 
lay the  legal  system.  The  law,  in  its  strict  sense,  was 
to  Paul  but  a  part  of  God's  ancient  dispensation,  and 
not  its  most  essential  and  enduring  part.  There  was 


188  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

a  gospel  before  the  law,  which  continued  operative 
during  the  period  over  which  the  legal  system  held 
sway.  Now  while,  abstractly  considered,  complete 
obedience  to  the  law's  requirements  would  entitle  one 
to  salvation,  yet,  in  concrete  fact,  no  person  has  been 
or  can  be  saved  thus,  because  of  the  power  of  sin  in 
all  men.  Practically,  then,  the  law  cannot  save, 
though  this  fact  results  from  no  fault  of  its  own 
(Gal.  iii.  21 ;  Rom.  viii.  3).  All,  therefore,  who  have 
been  saved  in  Old  Testament  times,  as  well  as  since, 
have  been  saved  by  grace,  as  was  Abraham ;  and  the 
law  may  be  left  out  of  the  account  in  considering  the 
direct,  practicable  means  of  salvation.  Hence  Paul 
both  agrees  with  the  common  view  regarding  the  law 
and  differs  from  it.  He  agrees  with  it  so  far  as  to 
impute  no  moral  defect  to  the  law  and  to  maintain 
the  abstract  possibility  of  salvation  by  it,  if  perfect 
obedience  is  rendered ;  but  he  differs  radically  from 
the  common  view  on  the  question  of  fact,  whether 
such  obedience  ever  is  or  can  be  rendered.  The  radi- 
cal difference  of  Paul's  from  the  common  Jewish  view 
is  not  in  respect  to  the  law  as  a  perfect  standard  and 
rule  of  life,  but  in  respect  to  man's  capacity  to  keep 
it.  He  differed  also,  no  doubt,  in  respect  to  the 
scope  of  its  requirements.  To  Paul  obedience,  in 
order  to  avail  for  salvation,  must  be  complete.  His 
deeper  moral  nature  and  more  scrupulous  conscience 
enabled  him  to  see  that  no  obedience  met  the  require- 
ment of  God  which  did  not  extend  to  the  whole  scope 
of  the  law's  demands  and  fulfil  its  highest  obligations. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF   THE  LAW  189 

His  keen  perception  of  the  loftiness  of  these  demands, 
combined  with  his  intense  sense  of  human  sinfulness, 
convinced  him  that  this  was  in  no  case  possible. 

What,  then,  is  the  conclusion  ?  The  law  cannot 
have  been  meant  to  accomplish  what  it  never  does 
and  never  can  do.  It  could  not  therefore  have  been 
intended  to  be  a  means  of  justification ;  but  this  fact 
in  no  way  precludes  its  usefulness  in  warning  men 
against  the  consequences  of  sin  and  in  operating  as  a 
check  against  evil  actions.  But  even  while  it  did 
this,  it  might  at  the  same  time  be  quickening  the  con- 
sciousness of  sin  within  the  man  and  bringing  his 
real  sinfulness  to  light.  The  law  might  intensify  sin 
in  one  sense,  even  while  restraining  it  in  another. 
The  law's  restraining  power  operates  in  the  sphere  of 
action ;  its  function  of  increasing  sin  is  exercised  in 
the  inner  sphere  of  conscience.  The  law  forbidding 
adultery  may  prevent  the  commission  of  the  overt  act, 
while  at  the  same  time  it  provokes  inward  opposi- 
tion to  itself  and  makes  sinful  desire  not  only  more 
plainly  felt,  but  in  fact  more  intense.  Thus  Paul's 
incidental  allusions  to  the  common  view  of  the  law  as 
given  to  check  sin  belong  to  a  different  sphere  of 
reflection  and  of  action  from  that  under  contempla- 
tion when  he  depicts  the  office  of  the  law  in  arousing 
the  power  of  sin  in  the  heart  and  conscience.  A  part 
of  the  answer  to  our  problem  is  therefore  to  be  found 
in  the  real  difference  between  Paul's  opinion  and  the 
common  view  respecting  the  practicability  of  justifi- 
cation by  law. 


190  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

Another  aid  to  the  solution  of  the  question,  also 
connected  with  his  doctrine  of  the  primal  gospel  of 
grace  and  faith,  will  appear  if  we  raise  the  inquiry, 
Does  the  law,  then,  which  was  ordained  unto  life,  and 
was  intended  to  secure  life  (17  eWoXrj  17  ei<?  £0)771;,  Rom. 
vii.  10),  fail  to  attain  this  end,  because  its  direct  effect 
was  to  condemn  rather  than  to  save  ?  The  answer  is 
that,  according  to  Paul's  view,  the  law  secures  the 
end  for  which  it  was  originally  given  indirectly  or 
mediately,  by  shutting  men  up  under  sin  until  they 
accept  a  gracious  deliverance.  Paul  found  this  com- 
mandment, which  was  ordained  to  secure  life,  to  be 
unto  him  a  minister  of  death;  but  it  was,  in  turn, 
through  this  "death"  which  he  incurred  through  the 
operation  of  the  law,  that  the  law  became  instru- 
mental in  finally  securing  life  for  him.  The  law  put 
him  to  death  ethically  —  pronounced  upon  his  proud 
strivings  the  merciless  death-sentence  —  that  he  might 
see  his  hopelessness,  and  resorting  to  God  for  needed 
mercy,  be  quickened  with  a  new  life  in  Christ.  Until 
the  law  came  to  him  on  this  severe  mission  he  was 
alive  (Rom.  vii.  9)  in  proud  security  and  confidence, 
but  the  law  extinguished  this  haughty  spirit,  not  of 
its  own  action  and  motion,  but  by  setting  into  opera- 
tion the  power  of  indwelling  sin  (verse  13) ;  he  sank 
under  the  crushing  power  of  his  sin  and  the  law's 
condemnation  of  it,  until  he  at  length  found  deliver- 
ance and  life  through  Jesus  Christ.  It  is  clearly  the 
apostle's  view  that  the  only  way  in  which  the  law  is 
effective  toward  securing  life  is  in  so  exhibiting  to 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  191 

men  their  sinfulness  and  the  peril  and  hopelessness 
which  it  involves  that  they  will  be  constrained  to 
seek  a  gracious  salvation.  Thus  the  law  may  be  said 
to  conduct  to  life  indirectly,  because  it  is  one  agency 
by  which  men  are  taught  their  need  of  Christ  and  led 
to  seek  his  aid. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Jewish  historical  view  of 
the  law  and  Paul's  conception  of  its  Christological 
aim  would  be  adjusted,  upon  Paul's  principles,  by  say- 
ing that  while  both  he  and  they  recognize  the  ade- 
quacy of  the  law  as  a  guide  to  life  and  duty,  he  denies, 
while  they  assume,  the  actual  possibility  that  men 
should  be  saved  by  works  of  obedience  to  it ;  or, 
stated  in  other  terms,  he  declares  that  the  power  of 
sin  in  men  is  so  strong  that  they  are  unable  to  con- 
form their  lives  completely  to  the  law's  requirements, 
and  without  such  conformity  they  cannot  be  saved  by 
obedience.  This  view  does  not,  however,  exclude  the 
usefulness  of  the  law  in  deterring  men  from  evil 
actions  by  its  threats  of  penalty.  So  far  as  Paul  ad- 
mits the  truth  of  the  common  view  of  the  law,  —  and 
to  the  general  proposition  that  it  had  life  for  its  aim 
he  consents,  —  the  peculiarity  of  his  view  is  that  it 
attains  its  end  in  a  way  quite  different  from  that 
commonly  supposed.  It  secures  life  not  immediately 
and  by  obedience  to  itself,  —  which  has  been  shown  to 
be  impossible,  —  but  indirectly  by  conducting  sinful 
men  to  Christ.  The  law  leads  to  life,  but  it  does  so 
through  that  moral  "death"  by  which  self-righteous- 
ness is  slain  and  the  sinner  is  brought  in  helpless- 


192  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ness  and  self-surrender  to  the  feet  of  the  life-giving 
Christ. 

The  principles  of  Paul  would  necessitate  the  view 
that  to  make  transgressions  abound  has  always  been 
the  function  of  the  law ;  that  even  in  Old  Testament 
times  it  served  not  to  justify,  but  to  convince  of  sin, 
and  so  to  turn  men  to  the  gracious  God,  who  promised 
pardon  upon  repentance.  Thus  the  operation  of  the 
correlative  principles  of  debt  and  works  may  be  con- 
sidered to  have  contributed,  so  far  as  men  proved  their 
futility,  to  the  more  eager  acceptance  of  the  contrasted 
principles  of  grace  and  faith,  which  are  also  corre- 
lates, and  which  constitute  for  Paul  the  essentials  of 
the  primitive  and  changeless  gospel. 

It  is  not  claimed  that  the  apostle  has  explicitly  fol- 
lowed out  these  lines  of  thought  which  we  have  been 
tracing.  It  is  maintained,  however,  that  they  are  ap- 
plications of  his  oft-repeated  principles  which  must  be 
made  if  we  will  adjust  his  statements  to  each  other 
or  bring  certain  parts  of  his  teaching  into  a  rational 
unity  with  other  parts. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  how  great  a  revolution  in  Paul's 
conception  of  the  law  must  have  been  wrought  in  his 
mind  by  his  changed  view  of  Christ.  The  whole  legal 
system  falls  at  once  into  a  subordinate  place,  and 
assumes  a  rudimentary  and  preparatory  character. 
In  coming  to  this  opinion  Paul  was  but  falling  into 
line  with  the  frequent  representations  of  the  prophets, 
who  proclaimed  the  temporary  character  of  the  Jewish 
system,  and  whose  philosophy  of  Jewish  history  was 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  193 

founded  upon  the  principle  that  it  was  to  issue  in 
something  larger,  more  universal,  and  more  spiritual, 
when  the  Messiah  should  come  and  establish  his  king- 
dom. Perceiving  this,  the  apostle  clearly  pointed  out 
that  they  only  were  the  true  devotees  of  the  law  who 
accepted  him  for  whom  the  law  prepared;  that  the 
true  Jews,  the  real  sons  of  Abraham,  were  those  who 
in  faith  like  Abraham's  received  the  revelation  which 
God  had  made  in  the  fulness  of  time  in  his  Son.  He 
therefore  pays  the  truest  honor  to  the  law  who  sees  it 
in  its  relation  to  Christ.  The  Mosaic  system  acquires 
a  greater  glory  from  being  a  servant  and  forerunner 
to  Christ  than  it  can  have  in  itself,  and  greater  than 
that  with  which  they  seek  to  clothe  it  who  maintain 
its  own  sufficiency  and  perpetuity.  Its  true  glory  is 
that  it  is  one  of  the  dispensations  of  God  by  which  he 
is  training  the  world  for  Christ ;  one  method  of  divine 
revelation  which  serves  an  important  though  tem- 
porary purpose,  —  a  purpose  which  is  at  length  con- 
summated in  him  who  fulfils  the  law  and  puts  an 
end  to  its  existence  in  respect  to  the  attainment  of 
righteousness  for  every  one  who  believes  on  himself 
(Rom.  x.  4). 

That  the  legal  system  as  such  is  brought  to  a  ter- 
mination by  the  gospel  is  so  obvious  a  corollary  to 
the  whole  doctrine  of  Paul  which  we  have  been  trac- 
ing, that  we  should  be  obliged  to  attribute  to  him  this 
view  of  the  subject  even  if  he  had  not  expressed  him- 
self explicitly  upon  the  subject.  This,  however,  he 
has  done,  and  that  in  striking  harmony  with  those 

13 


194  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

sayings  of  Jesus  which  are  preserved  to  us  in  respect 
to  his  relation  to  the  Jewish  system.  He  had  affirmed 
that  he  came  to  accomplish  for  the  law,  not  a  process 
of  destruction,  but  one  of  fulfilment.  It  was  not  his 
intention  to  break  with  the  legal  system,  and  to  estab- 
lish his  truth  and  kingdom  de  novo.  On  the  contrary, 
he  came  to  live  and  teach  in  the  line  of  the  law's 
true  purpose  and  meaning.  He  came  to  complete 
that  which  in  the  law  existed  in  a  temporary  and  in 
many  respects  in  an  imperfect  form.  He  came  to 
develop  by  an  organic  process  out  of  the  old  system  its 
ideal  content,  so  that  no  part  of  it  should  be  lost  or 
fail  to  attain  its  divinely  intended  aitfi  (Matt.  v.  17- 
20).  He  cited  examples  of  this  process  of  fulfilment, 
showing  the  way  in  which  he  unfolded  the  essential 
and  unchanging  ethical  and  spiritual  principles  which 
—  sometimes  in  the  law  itself,  and  yet  more  frequently 
in  the  traditional  interpretations  of  it — were  embodied 
in  inadequate  forms,  adapted  only  to  the  condition  of 
a  rude  age,  and  containing  concessions  to  the  hard- 
ness of  men's  hearts  which  could  not  be  permanently 
permitted  (Matt.  xix.  8).  In  teaching  that  he  who  per- 
ceived that  love  to  God  and  man  was  more  acceptable 
to  God  than  sacrifices,  was  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
of  God  (Mark  xii.  33,  34),  and  that  the  relation  of  the 
Sabbath  to  man  was  that  of  means  to  end,  he  un- 
folded principles  which  were  far-reaching  in  their 
scope,  and  which  could  not  fail  to  issue  in  the  prin- 
ciple which  is  fundamental  in  Paul's  thoughts; 
namely,  that  in  Christianity  the  essential  ethical  con- 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  195 

tent  of  the  law  is  taken  up,  embodied,  and  preserved, 
while  its  elements  of  imperfection  and  such  of  its  pro- 
visions as  are,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  temporary,  fall 
away  in  the  process  of  fulfilment,  as  the  blossom  falls 
away  in  the  development  of  the  fruit.  More  clearly 
still  did  Jesus'  teaching  that  his  gospel  was  no  mere 
amendment  of  Judaism  —  no  patch  to  be  sewed  upon 
the  old  garment,  but  something  new  and  complete  in 
itself  —  plainly  declare  the  divine  purpose  that  in  the 
gospel  the  old  system  as  such  was  to  pass  away.  The 
new  wine  of  Jesus'  teaching  demanded  new  wine-skins, 
—  that  is,  his  gospel  could  not  be  held  within  the 
forms  of  the  Jewish  religion,  but  must  be  left  free  to 
give  expression  to  its  universal  truths,  principles,  and 
laws  in  ways  adapted  to  its  own  nature  and  spirit 
(Mark  ii.  21,  22  ;  Luke  v.  36-39).  In  this  connec- 
tion Luke  reports  the  striking  remark  of  Jesus  that 
"  no  man  having  drunk  old  wine  desireth  new  ;  for  he 
saith,  The  old  is  good  "  (verse  39),  —  an  expression 
which  conveys  the  idea  (so  abundantly  illustrated 
in  the  early  days  of  Christianity,  and  indeed  in  all 
Christian  history)  that  men  cannot  readily  adjust  their 
minds  to  the  truth  of  the  newness  and  completeness 
of  the  gospel,  but  will  still  cling  persistently  to  some 
conception  which  makes  it  an  appendix  to  the  Old 
Testament  system,  or  at  most  a  mere  continuation, 
rather  than  a  true  fulfilment  of  it. 

Whether  Paul  was  familiar  with  these  sayings  of 
Jesus  or  not,  we  cannot  say.  It  is  in  any  case  cer- 
tain that  he  clearly  discerned  the  principles  which 


196  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

underlay  them  and  wrought  them  into  his  whole  sys- 
tem of  thought.  His  view  cannot  be  fully  determined 
by  the  citation  of  individual  passages,  since  it  is  often 
assumed  rather  than  expressed,  and  rather  pervades 
his  argument  than  forms  the  subject  of  explicit  demon- 
stration. Since  the  law  has  its  whole  purpose  in  lead- 
ing up  to  Christ  and  in  helping  to  prepare  the  world 
for  him,  it  must  fall  away  when  it  has  accomplished 
that  purpose.  The  law  "  was  added  because  of  trans- 
gressions, till  the  seed  should  come  to  whom  the 
promise  hath  been  made."  "  So  that  the  law  hath 
been  our  tutor  to  bring  us  unto  Christ,  that  we  might 
be  justified  by  faith.  But  now  that  faith  is  come,  we 
are  no  longer  under  a  tutor"  (Gal.  iii.  19,  24,  25). 
"  For  Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law  [reXo?  vofiov]  unto 
righteousness  to  every  one  that  belie veth "  (Rom. 
x.  4).  Most  interpreters  now  agree  that  re\o<?  VO/JLOV 
here  means,  not  the  ideal  aim  (as  Bengel,1  Lange, 
Alford),  but  is  to  betaken  literally,  and  denotes  the 
completion,  the  termination  of  the  legal  system,  and 
therefore  asserts  that  the  purpose  and  effectiveness 
of  the  law  as  an  aid  to  the  attainment  of  righteous- 
ness have  come  to  an  end  in  Christ  (so  De  Wette, 
Meyer,  Godet,  Weiss).  This  statement  would  then 
be  equivalent,  not  to  an  assertion  of  the  law's  destruc- 
tion, but  to  an  affirmation  that  all  its  uses  as  a  guide 
to  righteousness  are  met  and  fulfilled  in  Christ ;  that 
there  is  therefore  no  assistance  to  be  derived  from 
the  law  for  the  attainment  of  righteousness  of  life 
1  "TeAos,./mis,  et  TrXiypw/xa,  complementum,  sunt  synonyma." 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAW  197 

which  is  not  more  easily  and  completely  secured  in 
Christ. 

In  the  plainest  terms,  though  quite  incidentally  in 
the  course  of  his  argument,  the  apostle  asserts  the 
abrogation  of  the  legal  system.  "  For  if  that  which 
passeth  away  was  with  glory,  much  more  that  which 
remaineth  is  in  glory  "  (2  Cor.  iii.  11).  Here  "  that 
which  passeth  away "  is  defined  in  the  context  as 
"  the  letter,"  "  the  ministration  of  death  engraven 
on  stones"  (verses  6,  7).  In  his  argument  against 
the  tenets  of  the  Colossian  heretics  (who  united  in 
their  strange  doctrines  heathen  Gnostic  elements  with 
the  extreme  legalism  of  the  Essenes),  he  urges  his 
readers  to  maintain  their  independence  of  the  Jewish 
observances  whose  necessity  the  errorists  referred  to 
urged  upon  the  Christians.  "  Let  no  man  judge  you," 
he  says,  "  in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  feast 
day  or  a  new  moon  or  a  sabbath  day,"  and  then  adds, 
in  a  comprehensive  statement,  his  whole  philosophy  of 
the  nature  of  the  legal  system  in  its  relation  to  Christ, 
"  which  are  a  shadow  of  the  things  to  come ;  but  the 
body  is  Christ's  "(Col.  ii.  16,  17).  With  this  passage 
may  be  compared  Gal.  iv.  9-11,  where  Paul  is  re- 
buking the  Galatian  Christians  for  their  return  to  the 
law,  —  "  the  weak  and  beggarly  rudiments  whereunto 
they  [ye]  desire  to  be  in  bondage."  Then  he  adds : 
"  Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and  seasons,  and  years. 
I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  by  any  means  I  have  bestowed 
labor  upon  you  in  vain."  To  the  apostle  this  contin- 
ued adherence  to  Jewish  forms  signifies  (at  least  in 


198  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  case  of  Gentile  converts)  so  defective  an  under- 
standing of  the  principles  of  the  complete  and  self- 
sufficient  gospel  of  Christ,  that  he  is  almost  ready  to 
despair  of  those  who  are  led  into  it. 

In  Paul's  view  the  full  disclosure  of  God's  gracious 
purpose  and  way  of  salvation  is  found  only  in  Christ. 
His  gospel  does  not  need  to  be  supplemented  from 
the  earlier  and  imperfect  stages  of  revelation.  Chris- 
tianity is  lacking  in  nothing  which  was  ot  permanent 
value  in  the  law.  He  is  entirely  in  accord  with  the 
writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  the  view 
that  God  has  taken  away  the  first,  that  he  might 
establish  the  second  (Heb.  x.  9).  He  has  completed 
the  old  in  the  new.  The  law  is  indeed  worthy  of  all 
honor,  but  its  chief  glory  will  ever  be  that  it  served 
to  usher  in  the  gospel  and  to  prove  to  mankind  a 
"  tutor  unto  Christ." 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  PERSON   OF  CHRIST 

THE  apostle  has  not  presented  in  his  epistles  a 
systematically  developed  doctrine  concerning  the  na- 
ture and  person  of  the  Redeemer.  It  is  wholly  im- 
probable that  he  ever  applied  his  mind  to  the  problem 
of  defining  the  relation  to  each  other  of  the  divine  and 
human  elements  in  his  person.  The  needs  of  Paul's 
time  did  not  demand  such  an  effort.  The  two  great 
obstacles  to  the  progress  of  the  gospel  which  con- 
fronted the  apostle  were  the  Pharisaic  theory  of  salva- 
tion by  merit,  and  the  general  rejection  by  the  Jews 
of  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah.  It  was  neces- 
sary for  him  to  urge  upon  the  men  of  his  time  such 
facts  and  arguments  as  would  convince  them  that 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah,  and  that  salvation  is  by 
grace  through  faith  in  him ;  but  into  any  systematic 
effort  to  define  the  nature  of  his  personality  this  task 
would  not  lead  him. 

We  have,  however,  many  incidental  references  to 
the  person  of  Christ  which  are  of  such  a  character  as 
to  reveal  the  outlines  of  that  picture  of  the  Lord 
which  must  have  lain  in  the  apostle's  mind.  These 
are  presented  in  connection  with  statements  concern- 


200  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ing  his  love,  sufferings,  and  exaltation,  and  are  most 
numerous  in  the  third  group  of  his  epistles,  where 
they  occur  in  the  course  of  his  refutation  of  the  false 
gnosis  which  made  Christianity  an  esoteric  doctrine, 
and  degraded  Christ  to  the  rank  of  created  beings. 
The  titles  which  are  applied  to  him  are  also  impor- 
tant in  determining  the  apostle's  idea  of  his  person. 

In  the  first  two  groups  of  epistles  the  references  to 
Christ's  person  are  more  incidental  than  in  the  third 
group.  In  both  of  these  earlier  groups  the  special 
subjects  which  are  under  consideration  preclude  any 
direct  discussion  of  this  theme.  It  will  be  found, 
however,  that  the  elements  of  the  views  which  are 
more  fully  presented  in  the  Epistles  of  the  Imprison- 
ment are  already  present  in  the  earlier  letters.  We 
shall  first  consider  the  titles  and  allusions  which  are 
found  in  the  first  two  groups,  and  then  trace  more  in 
detail  the  fuller  descriptions  which  are  presented  in 
the  third. 

Paul's  personal  knowledge  of  Christ  began  with  the 
revelation  to  him  of  the  ascended  and  glorified  Lord. 
By  this  beginning  his  modes  of  thought  and  manner 
of  speaking  of  him  would  naturally  be  determined. 
We  should  expect  to  find  that  the  conception  of  him 
as  the  risen  Lord,  exalted  to  divine  glory  and  power, 
would  be  fundamental  and  controlling  in  the  apostle's 
mind.  Reference  to  the  lordship  of  Christ  pervades 
the  great  doctrinal  letters.  It  is  one  of  the  chief 
marks  of  his  ministry  that  he  preaches  Jesus  Christ 
as  Lord  (KV/HO?,  2  Cor.  iv.  5).  The  fundamental 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  201 

fact  in  the  Church's  confession  is  that  Jesus  is  Lord 
(1  Cor.  xii.  3 ;  Rom.  x.  9) ;  and  there  is  no  more 
common  formula  in  the  apostle's  writings  than 
"  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,"  or  "  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
By  this  title  Paul  uniformly  implies  a  special  au- 
thority and  mastership  of  Christ  over  all  believers. 
Christ  as  the  heavenly  Lord  is  the  sole  mediator  of 
salvation ;  his  commands  are  decisive  for  the  Church, 
and  before  him  men  must  stand  in  judgment. 

But  Christ  is  not  merely  Lord  of  the  Church,  but 
sovereign  of  the  world  (/cupto?  Travrwv,  Rom.  x.  12 ; 
cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  27).  Old  Testament  language  which 
was  used  of  Jehovah  is  freely  applied  to  him  (1  Cor. 
x.  22;  Rom.  x.  13),  and  according  to  the  more  prob- 
able interpretation  of  Rom.  ix.  5,  he  is  there  extolled 
as  the  One  "  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  forever." 1 
The  grounds  on  which  this  interpretation  is  preferred 
to  that  which  places  a  period  after  the  word  "  flesh  " 
(adpfca)  and  renders  the  remainder  of  the  verse  as  a 
doxology  to  God  (see  marg.  R.  Y.  )  are,  briefly  stated, 
as  follows :  (a)  A  doxology  to  God  would  seem  to 

1  For  an  elaborate  defence  of  the  view  that  the  passage  is  a 
doxology,  see  an  essay  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  in  the  Journal  of  the 
Society  for  Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis  for  1881  (reprinted  in 
Dr.  Abbot's  Critical  Essays'),  and  for  an  equally  exhaustive 
argument  for  the  contrary  view,  Dr.  Timothy  Dwight  in  the  same 
number  of  the  journal  just  referred  to.  Among  textual  critics 
Lachmann  and  Tischendorf  sanction  the  former  view  by  their 
punctuation ;  per  contra,  Scrivener,  and  Westcott  and  Hort. 
Among  well-known  interpreters  the  former  view  is  represented 
by  Baur,  Beyschlag,  and  Meyer  ;  the  latter  by  Ritschl,  Godet,  and 
Weiss. 


202        THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

be  more  abrupt  in  the  connection  than  an  ascription 
of  praise  to  Christ,  which  would  be  occasioned  by  the 
mention  of  him  as  the  crowning  glory  of  Israelitish 
history.  (6)  As  applied  to  Christ,  the  words  form  a 
natural  antithesis  to  TO  Kara  a-apxa.  Christ  is  de- 
scended from  the  fathers  of  Jewish  history  on  the 
trdp£  side  of  his  being,  but  he  is  God  over  all  in  his 
essential  nature.  (<?)  The  lofty  attributes  and  pre- 
rogatives of  creation  and  sovereignty  over  the  world 
which  Paul  elsewhere  ascribes  to  Christ  (especially 
in  Colossians  and  Philippians ;  for  example,  Col.  i.  16 ; 
Phil.  ii.  6-8)  appear  to  overbear  the  objection  that  Paul 
does  not  elsewhere  designate  Christ  as  0e6<t.  Those 
who  maintain  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  Titus 
may,  however,  appeal  to  ii.  13  as  an  instance  in 
which,  according  to  the  grammatical  probabilities  of 
the  case,  Christ  is  spoken  of  as  0eo9.  Grammatical 
usage  certainly  favors  the  application  of  both  appella- 
tives fjueyd\ov  Oeov  and  <7&>Tr}/>o<?,  which  are  connected 
by  teal,  under  a  common  article,  to  the  same  person. 
These  considerations  serve,  we  think,  materially  to 
weaken  the  argument  from  Paul's  common  usage. 
The  plenitude  of  divine  attributes  (jrdv  TO  ir\ijpa)fj,a 
T?/<?  0e6r?7T09,  Col.  ii.  9)  is  ascribed  to  Christ,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  interpretation  which  is  at  least  as 
plausible  as  its  opposite,  he  is  directly  called  0eo?  in 
Titus  ii.  13.1 

1  So  Wiesinger,  Van  Oosterzee,  Weiss,  Ellicott;  per  contra, 
Winer,  De  Wette,  Huther.  For  a  concise  presentation  of  the 
grounds  of  the  interpretation  which  ia  adopted  in  both  our  Eng- 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  203 

The  exalted  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  in  a  meta- 
physical sense,  is  one  in  nature  with  the  Father,  and 
shares  with  him  the  glory  which  is  the  prerogative 
of  Deity.  His  sonship  to  God  was  determined 
(o/Ho-0et'<?)  in  the  fact  that  God  raised  him  from  the 
dead  (Rom.  i.  4).  The  resurrection  was  that  divine 
act  of  power  by  which  he  was  instated  into  the  dignity 
of  sonship,  although  he  was  truly  God's  Son  before, 
and  as  such  was  sent  into  the  world  (Rom.  viii.  3  ; 
Gal.  iv.  4).  As  Son  Jesus  occupies  a  unique  position 
in  the  universe,  since  all  things  are  subject  to  him 
(1  Cor.  xv.  28;  cf.  viii.  6),  and  sustains  a  unique 
relation  to  God,  since  he  is  "  the  image  of  God  "  (el/cav 
TOV  Oeov,  2  Cor.  iv.  4  ;  Col.  i.  15),  and  before  his  com- 
ing to  earth  was  "  rich "  in  the  glory  of  the  Father 
(2  Cor.  viii.  9).  The  titles  "  Lord"  and  "  Son,"  and 
the  functions  and  prerogatives  which,  in  connection 
with  them,  are  ascribed  to  Christ,  are  not  indeed 
equivalent  to  a  formal  definition  of  his  essence ;  but 
in  any  fair  estimate  of  their  meaning,  they  decisively 
show  that  in  his  essential  relation  to  God,  Christ  was 
a  wholly  unique  Being,  who  before  his  advent  to  earth 
shared  the  divine  nature  and  glory,  and  who,  in  his 
exaltation  after  the  resurrection,  only  enters  in  a 
formal  and  demonstrative  manner  upon  a  dignity 
which  corresponds  to  his  essence  and  inherent  right. 

lish  versions,  see  Ellicott  in  loco.  An  elaborate  article  on  the 
other  side  by  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot  may  be  found  in  the  Journal  of  the 
Society  for  Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis  for  1881  (reprinted 
in  Critical  Essay  a). 


204  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

In  connection  with  the  exalted  dignity  and  preroga- 
tives of  Christ  thus  presented,  Paul  teaches  a  certain 
subordination  on  his  part  to  the  Father.  He  is  the 
Executor  of  the  Father's  will,  the  Mediator  of  the  sal- 
vation which  the  Father  has  resolved  upon.  His  re- 
lation to  God  is  likened  to  that  of  the  wife  to  the 
husband  (1  Cor.  xi.  3).  In  his  exaltation,  as  in  his 
humiliation,  he  is  the  agent  who  executes  the  Father's 
purposes.  God  has  committed  to  him  the  work  of 
completing  the  salvation  of  mankind,  after  which  he 
is  to  resign  his  sovereign  authority  to  him  from  whom 
he  received  it  (1  Cor.  xv.  28).  It  should  be  noticed 
that  this  subjection  of  himself  on  Christ's  part  is 
affirmed  in  connection  with  his  delivery  over  to  the 
Father  of  the  completed  kingdom  and  the  resignation 
of  his  office  as  the  Mediator  of  salvation,  and  that  the 
end  contemplated  in  it  is  "  that  God  may  be  all  in 
all."  As  Christ  was  exalted  by  the  divine  will,  after 
his  humiliation,  to  the  throne  of  sovereignty,  so  after 
the  completion  of  his  office  he  will,  still  in  dependence 
upon  the  divine  will,  resign  this  function,  that  the 
divinely  completed  work  of  salvation  may  appear. 
The  subordination  affirmed  is  therefore  rather  one  of 
office  through  the  resignation  of  the  mediatorial  throne, 
than  of  nature  or  essence.  He  delivers  over  the  com- 
pleted kingdom,  and  vacates  his  office  as  its  admin- 
istrator because  his  work  is  finished,  and  that  the 
perfect  result  may  appear  to  the  praise  of  the  Father. 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  apostle,  in  developing 
his  thoughts  of  Christ  from  this  beginning,  should  not 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  205 

refer  in  detail  to  the  events  of  his  earthly  life.  But 
from  this  fact  the  conclusion  should  not  be  drawn 
that  he  was  unacquainted  with  these  events,  at 
least  with  the  most  important  of  them.1  Who  can 
believe  that,  even  if  he  had  been  ignorant  of  the  lead- 
ing facts  of  Christ's  life  before,  he  would  not  have 
acquainted  himself  with  them  in  his  associations  with 
the  primitive  apostles  ?  Could  he  have  passed  fifteen 
days  with  Peter  (Gal.  i.  18)  and  not  have  inquired 
about  the  words  and  deeds  of  the  Lord  whom  he  now 
worshipped  and  served  as  Master  and  Saviour  ?  Nor 
should  it  be  held  (with  Pfleiderer2  and  others)  that 
Paul  would  be  indifferent  to  the  events  of  Christ's 
earthly  life  because  he  claimed  to  have  received  his 
gospel,  not  through  human  intervention,  but  by  direct 
revelation.  It  is  a  forced  interpretation  which  infers 
from  Paul's  determination  to  know  only  "  Christ,  and 
him  crucified  "  (1  Cor.  ii.  2)  that  he  was  concerned  in 
his  doctrine  of  Christ  only  with  the  fact  of  his  cruci- 
fixion, and  not  with  the  other  events  in  his  career. 
He  will  know  only  Christ  crucified,  not  as  a  contrast  to 
knowing  other  facts  concerning  him,  but  as  a  contrast 
to  the  speculative  wisdom  to  which  the  Corinthians 
were  inclined.  By  an  equally  misplaced  emphasis 
does  Pfleiderer  infer  from  Gal.  ii.  6  that  Paul  would 
not  receive  information  concerning  Christ  from  the 
primitive  apostles  (per  contra,  cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  3),  who, 

1  On  Paul's  knowledge  of  Jesus'  personal  history,  cf.  Hausratk 
Der  Apostel  Paulus,  pp.  142,  143. 

2  Der  Paulinismus,  p.  112  ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  124 


206  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

he  says,  "  imparted  nothing "  to  him.  But  the  con- 
text plainly  shows  that  in  this  statement  he  is  deny- 
ing, not  the  impartation  of  information  concerning 
Jesus'  earthly  life,  —  a  matter  wholly  aside  from  his 
purpose,  —  but  the  addition  of  any  new  or  different 
teaching  concerning  the  principle  and  method  of 
salvation.  So  far  from  imparting  anything  to  him 
(that  is,  correcting  or  supplementing  his  teaching  in 
regard  to  the  freedom  of  the  Gentiles  from  the  Mosaic 
enactments,  —  the  real  subject  in  hand),  they  gave  to 
him  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship,  and 
agreed  that  each  group  of  apostles  should  labor  in 
its  own  field  (Gal.  ii.  9),  —  a  compact  which  involved 
the  imposition  upon  Paul's  converts  of  no  require- 
ment in  addition  to  that  which  he  himself  had  exacted 
of  them. 

It  is  true  that  the  Christ  whom  Paul  had  seen 
(1  Cor.  ix.  1 ;  xv.  8)  was  the  risen  Christ,  and  that 
the  conception  of  him  in  his  glorified  character,  and 
not  that  of  him  in  his  historic  manifestation,  is  the 
one  which  rules  his  thoughts  and  forms  the  starting- 
point  of  his  teaching.  A  few  historical  facts  are, 
however,  incidentally  mentioned  in  connection  with 
doctrinal  statements.  Christ  is  descended  from  the 
fathers  of  the  Jewish  nation  (Rom.  ix.  5 ;  Gal.  iii.  16), 
and  indeed  was  "  born  of  the  seed  of  David  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh"  (Rom.  i.  3).  He  asserts  that  he 
received  from  the  testimony  of  others  the  all-impor- 
tant facts  (eV  TrpeoTOfc?)  of  Christ's  death,  burial,  resur- 
rection, and  appearances,  of  which  he  enumerates  five 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  207 

in  detail  (1  Cor.  xv.  3-7).  He  speaks  so  often  of  the 
crucifixion  and  sufferings  of  Christ  as  to  leave  no 
doubt  that  he  had  in  his  mind  a  clear  and  vivid  pic- 
ture of  the  Lord's  death.  He  fyas  also  learned  the 
circumstances  regarding  the  betrayal  of  Jesus,  and 
even  the  very  words  in  which  he  instituted  his  memo- 
rial supper  (1  Cor.  xi.  23-25),  —  knowledge  which  he 
"  received  from  the  Lord  \airo  rov  xvpiov]"  in  the 
sense  of  having  traced  the  usage  which  he  found  pre- 
vailing in  the  Church  back  to  its  source  in  the  direc- 
tions given  at  the  institution  of  the  ordinance. 

These  are  instances  in  which  Paul  clearly  professes 
dependence  upon  the  traditions  of  the  Lord's  words 
and  deeds,  which  were  the  main  source  of  information 
in  his  time.  It  can  by  no  means  be  inferred  from  the 
paucity  of  these  references  that  the  apostle  had  no 
information  beyond  what  they  contain.  We  should 
rather  expect  to  find  in  any  case  a  comparative 
silence  regarding  these  facts  in  the  treatment  of 
Christianity  by  a  man  of  the  strongly  systematic 
and  doctrinal  bent  which  characterized  Paul,  espe- 
cially when  he  approaches  the  subject  from  the  side 
of  a  great  experience  which  he  never  ceases  to  regard 
as  a  revelation  to  him  of  the  person  of  the  glorified 
Redeemer. 

While  it  is  probable  that  the  events  of  Christ's  life, 
aside  from  those  connected  with  his  death  and  resur- 
rection, did  not  strongly  affect  his  doctrinal  opinions, 
which  were  formed  around  a  different  center,  the  im- 
pression of  the  character  of  Jesus  must  have  been  a 


208  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

potent  factor  in  the  apostle's  thinking,  although  it  is 
never  put  into  the  foreground  of  his  teaching.  It 
was  an  essential  element  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
vicarious  sacrifice  for  our  sins  that  he  was  himself 
without  sin  (2  Cor.  v.  21).  Paul  once  alludes  to  the 
"  meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ "  (2  Cor.  x.  1), 
and  several  times  makes  indirect  reference  to  the  ex- 
ample of  his  love  and  helpfulness  (1  Cor.  xi.  1 ;  2  Cor. 
v.  14 ;  Gal.  ii.  20).  But  it  is  obvious  that  the  circum- 
stances of  Christ's  earthly  life,  and  the  impression  of 
his  pure  and  holy  character  as  a  man,  would  not  be 
so  prominent  and  vivid  in  Paul's  mind  as  in  those  of 
the  primitive  apostles  who  had  accompanied  Jesus  in 
his  labors  among  men.  Paul's  thoughts  concerning 
Christ  naturally  rise  into  the  sphere  of  eternity.  He 
thinks  of  him  less  as  he  was  for  a  few  years  on  earth 
than  as  he  now  is  in  the  glory  of  the  Father,  or  as  he 
was  before  his  humiliation.  The  transactions  which 
occurred  on  earth  have  their  ground  for  Paul  in  a 
world  of  eternal  principles  and  truths,  and  are  a  reve- 
lation of  purposes  of  divine  love  and  condescension 
which  were  cherished  in  the  heart  of  Christ  before  he 
came  to  earth.  Hence  it  is  not  the  "  Christ  of  his- 
tory," but  the  Christ  of  eternity  to  whom  Paul  traces 
back  the  work  of  salvation  (2  Cor.  viii.  9;  cf.  Phil, 
it  5  «<?.). 

It  has  been  held  by  some  l  that  Paul  falls  into  an 

1  See,  for  example,  Holsten,  Zum  Evangelium  des  Paulus  und 
des  Petrus,  p.  487,  and  Liidemann,  Die  Antkropologie  des  Apostel* 
Paulus,  p.  120  sq. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  209 

inconsistency  regarding  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus  in 
representing  him  as  free  from  the  commission  of  sin 
(2  Cor.  v.  21),  and  yet  as  partaking  on  his  human 
side  in  the  fleshly,  sinful  nature  (eV  o/iotco/iem  <raptcb<; 
a/jbaprias,  Rom.  viii.  3).  He  had,  it  is  said,  the  same 
sinful  flesh  (o-ap^ayiia/ma?)  as  other  men,  and  would 
therefore  be  the  subject  of  those  sinful  desires  which 
are  inseparable  from  it.  It  will  be  observed  that  this 
interpretation  rests  upon  a  close  identification  of  the 
ideas  of  "  flesh  "  and  "  sin."  It  supposes  that  Paul 
regards  the  flesh  as  inherently  and  necessarily  sinful, 
and  therefore  naturally  infers  that  if  Christ  possessed 
a  "likeness  of  sinful  flesh,"  he  must  have  been  the 
subject  of  the  sinful  desires  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
inhere  in  human  flesh.  We  have  seen,  however,  in  a 
previous  chapter  that  this  identification  as  thus  made 
cannot  be  maintained. 

In  the  first  edition  of  Der  Paulinismus,  Pfleiderer, 
carrying  out  the  view  that  the  o-apf  is  inherently 
sinful,  maintained  that  o/W&>/*a  designates  the  same- 
ness in  principle  between  Christ's  flesh  and  hu- 
man flesh  generally ;  that  is,  its  sinfulness.1  But 
6fj,oi(a/j,a  means  likeness,  not  sameness  ;  it  denotes  re- 
semblance, and  not  identity  ;  it  signifies  that  which 
corresponds  to  something.  The  heathen  changed 

1  See  Der  Paulinismtts,  1  Aufl.  p.  153  sq. :  Eng.  tr.  i.  152  sq. 
This  interpretation,  in  which  he  had  followed  Overbeck  and 
Holsten,  is  abandoned  by  Pfleiderer  in  the  second  edition  (see 
page  181  sq.).  Some  of  his  views  as  expressed  in  the  first  edition 
are  given  in  the  text  because  they  are  concisely  and  clearly  pre- 
sented, and  because  they  are  still  widely  held. 

14 


210  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  glory  of  God  into  a  likeness  (6//,o/6>/ia)  expressed 
in  an  image  of  corruptible  man  (Rom.  i.  23)  ;  that 
is,  they  made  and  worshipped  images  which  were  so 
shaped  as  to  resemble  perishable  men.  Elsewhere 
(Rom.  v.  14)  the  apostle  speaks  of  sinning  "  after  the 
likeness  [eTri  TCO  o/ioito/iart]  of  Adam's  transgres- 
sion ; "  that  is,  in  a  similar  manner,  against  an  ex- 
plicit positive  command.  So  here  what  is  said  is 
that  Christ,  in  order  to  redeem  men  from  the  sin 
which  had  its  seat  in  the  flesh,  came  into  the  world 
in  a  human  form,  like  that  of  man's  own  actually 
sinful  flesh,  —  "a  visible  form  like  human  nature, 
which  is  subject  to  sin."  l  If  Paul  had  meant  to  say 
that  Christ  himself  assumed  the  "  flesh  of  sin,"  he 
could  easily  have  said  so  by  writing  ev  a-apxl  a/ta/oTta?. 
He  clearly  introduces  a  statement  of  similarity,  not 
of  sameness,  to  guard  against  just  that  idea.2 

It  was  essential  to  Paul's  purpose  in  the  passage  to 
insert  the  qualifying  word  a/ta/ar/a?,  because  he  is  dis- 
cussing the  deliverance  of  man  from  sin  by  Christ's 
coming  into  a  form  like  to  that  of  human  sinful  flesh. 
It  is  true  that  o/iouo/ta  means  "  likeness,"  and  not 
"  difference."  But  things  which  are  alike  in  some 
respects  may  also  be  different  in  others  equally  im- 
portant. If  a  writer  clearly  affirms  that  two  things 
are  alike  for  the  very  purpose  of  avoiding  the  infer- 
ence that  they  are  identically  the  same,  then  so  far 
forth  the  difference  is  as  essential  and  emphatic  as 

1  Thayer's  Lexicon. 

*  Cf.  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol.  §  78  c. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  211 

the  resemblance.  Such  is  the  case  in  this  instance. 
Christ  possessed  the  crdp%, —  not,  however,  the  <rap% 
aiiaprias  of  our  sinful  humanity,  but  that  which  was 
similar  to  it;  he  had  all  the  essential  endowments 
of  the  natural  man,  but  without  sin.  By  thus  himself 
coming  in  the  flesh  and  not  partaking  in  its  sinful- 
ness,  he  was  able  to  dethrone  sin,  which  ruled  in  its 
domain,  and  thus  accomplish  what  the  law  could  not 
do  because  of  the  resistance  which  it  encountered 
from  sin.1 

Directly  connected  with  the  subject  of  Christ's  sin- 
lessness  is  the  question  how  the  apostle  could  have 
accounted  for  this  sinless  personality  who  yet  stands 
in  the  line  of  descent  from  the  fathers,  and  so  on  his 
human  side  is  a  son  of  Adam,  —  the  head  of  a  uni- 
versally sinful  race.  It  can  neither  be  maintained,  on 

1  In  his  work  Das  Urchristenthum,  p.  219  sq.  Pfleiderer  adopts 
the  opinion  that  6/Wo>fia  may  designate  a  likeness  in  certain 
respects,  though  not  in  all,  between  Christ's  flesh  and  human 
flesh  generally :  "  Denn  ob  das  Abbild  dem  Original,  welchem  es 
nachsremacht  ist,  in  jeder  Hinsicht  gleich  oder  nur  in  gewisser 
Hinsicht  (z.  B.  der  Form  nach)  gleich,  in  anderer  Hinsicht  (etwa 
dem  Stoff  nach)  ungleich  und  so  nur  ahnlich  sei,  dariiber  besagt 
das  Wort  opoiufjia  lediglich  gar  nichts."  He  therefore  concludes 
that  although  for  our  thinking  the  participation  of  Christ  in  the 
<rop£  would  necessarily  involve  the  taint  of  sinfulness  which  in- 
evitably (?)  clings  to  it,  yet  we  cannot  assume  that  this  was  the 
case  for  Paul,  especially  in  the  face  of  his  assertion  (2  Cor.  v.  21) 
that  Christ  knew  no  sin,  and  also  in  view  of  the  most  probable 
meaning,  as  he  views  it,  of  fv  -ty  vapid  in  Rom.  viii.  3,  which  is, 
not  the  destruction  of  Christ's  personal  sin  in  his  flesh,  but  the 
destruction  of  sin  in  general  in  his  flesh ;  that  is,  in  his  substi- 
tutionary  life  and  death  in  aud  for  humanity. 


212  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  one  hand,  that  Paul  denies  the  supernatural  con- 
ception of  Jesus,1  nor,  on  the  other,  that  the  tradition 
of  his  miraculous  conception  which  is  embodied  in  the 
First  and  Third  Gospels  had  ever  reached  him.  He 
declares  that  Jesus  was  Kara  a-dp/ca  a  descendant  of 
David  (Rom.  i.  3),  —  a  belief  which  may  have  rested 
upon  the  supposition  of  Mary's  Davidic  descent.  If, 
as  many  scholars  suppose,2  the  genealogy  given  by 
Luke  is  that  of  Mary,  additional  plausibility  would  be 
lent  to  this  conjecture.  It  is  improbable  that  Paul 
was  acquainted  with  the  traditions  respecting  the  su- 
pernatural conception  and  miraculous  birth  of  Jesus ; 
but  even  in  that  case  there  is  nothing  in  his  language 
which  is  inconsistent  with  them.  And  when  we  con- 
sider his  doctrine  of  the  universal  sinfulness  of  man- 
kind as  descended  from  Adam,  in  connection  with  his 
affirmation  of  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus,  the  preter- 
natural origin  of  his  humanity  seems  to  supply  the 
only  means  of  explaining  and  harmonizing  these  two 
facts,  both  of  which  he  so  explicitly  asserts.  We 
can  only  say,  then,  that  although  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  Paul  reflected  upon  this  problem,  it  is 
certain  that  he  not  only  affirms  nothing  which  is  in- 
consistent with  the  supernatural  conception,  but  that 

1  "Er   leugnet   sie   (die   iibernatiirliche  Erzeugung)  indirect 
durch  die  Betonung  des  Davidssohnshaft  nach  dem  Fleisch,  welcbe 
ja  die  natiirliche  Vaterschaft  des  Davididen  Joseph  voraussetzt," 
Pfleiderer,  Der  Paulinismus,  1  Aufl.  p.  152 ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  151. 

2  For  example,    Olshausen,    Godet    (Commentaries  in   loco) ; 
Weiss,  Life  of  Christ,  i.  216  sq. ,   Andrews,  Life  of  our  Lord, 
p.  56  sq. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  213 

on  no  other  supposition  can  his  statements  concern- 
ing Christ's  sinlessness,  on  the  one  hand,  and  univer- 
sal human  sinfulness,  on  the  other,  be  so  well  adjusted 
and  harmonized. 

Such  in  brief  outline  are  the  teachings  of  Paul  re- 
specting the  person  of  Christ  which  find  place  in  his 
earlier  epistles.  They  are  elements  of  doctrine  rather 
than  parts  of  a  developed  system.  They  form  the 
basis  of  the  more  elaborate  descriptions  of  Christ's 
dignity,  office,  and  work  which  we  meet  in  Colossians, 
Ephesians,  and  Philippians,  to  a  brief  review  of  which 
we  will  now  turn  our  attention. 

In  Ephesians  Christ  is  presented  as  the  agent  whom 
God  in  eternity  appointed  to  the  work  of  salvation, 
and  through  whom  the  elect  are  foreordained  unto 
adoption  as  sons  (i.  5).  Accordingly,  when  their  sal- 
vation is  effected  they  are  described  as  "  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  for  good  works,  which  God  afore  pre- 
pared that  they  should  walk  in  them"  (ii.  10).  The 
realization  in  the  Church  of  God's  manifold  wisdom  is 
in  accordance  with  "  the  eternal  purpose  which  he  pur- 
posed in  Christ  Jesus  "  (iii.  11).  In  one  passage  the 
apostle  declares  that  Christ  was  both  the  medium  and 
the  end  of  the  creation :  "  In  him  were  all  things  cre- 
ated, in  the  heavens  and  upon  the  earth,  things  visi- 
ble and  things  invisible,  whether  thrones  or  domin- 
ions or  principalities  or  powers ;  all  things  have  been 
created  through  him  and  unto  him"  (Col.  i.  16).  As 
the  associate  of  the  Father  in  creation,  the  mediator 
of  salvation,  and  the  head  of  the  Church,  he  is  the 


214  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

possessor  of  all  fulness  of  divine  life  and  power  (Col. 
i.  19),  "  in  whom  are  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  ancl 
knowledge  hidden  "  (ii.  3),  so  that  one  need  not  seek 
elsewhere  for  the  disclosure  of  the  true  divine  mys- 
tery of  life  and  being,  as  the  Colossians  were  disposed 
to  do.  Accordingly  there  now  dwells  in  Christ  in  his 
glorified  corporeity  (o-<u/wm/tco<? J)  the  plenitude  of 
Deity  (fleor?;?)  (Col.  ii.  9),  which  enables  him,  as 
the  possessor  of  unsearchable  riches  of  power  and 
grace  (Eph.  iii.  8),  to  impart  the  fulness  of  di- 
vine life  to  believers,  and  so  to  occupy  the  station 
of  pre-eminence  in  the  universe  and  to  be  the  chief 
in  the  kingdom  of  redemption  (Col.  i.  18 ;  ii.  10 ; 
ii.  19). 

The  Son  of  God's  love  is  the  "  image  of  the  invisi- 
ble God,"  —  the  One  who  embodies  and  perfectly  ex- 
presses the  divine  nature ;  the  One  whose  relation  as 

1  Some  interpreters  (as  R.  Schmidt  and  Pfleiderer)  understand 
trw/ian/ccor  to  refer  to  Christ's  incarnate  life.  In  this  case  the 
passage  would  probably  mean  that  Christ  was,  in  his  incarnation, 
the  bearer  of  the  divine  fulness  in  historical  reality,  as  opposed  to 
the  imaginary  beings  to  whom  the  Colossian  false  teachers  re- 
ferred. But  the  apostle  seems  to  be  stating  a  present  and  contin- 
uous, rather  than  a  historical,  fact  in  Karoiicel.  Considering  the 
subject  in  hand  —  the  sole  sufficiency  of  Christ  as  the  mediator 
of  salvation  —  and  the  apostle's  mode  of  conceiving  of  Christ 
rather  in  his  heavenly  glory  and  power  than  in  his  human  mani- 
festation, the  interpretation  which  refers  the  expression  to  his 
glorified  life  in  heaven  is  the  more  probably  correct.  So  Meyer, 
Commentary  in  loco,  and  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol  §  103  d,  note  8  ;  Eng. 
tr.  ii.  103,  note  9.  Others  combine  both  ideas,  as  De  Wette, 
Exegetisches  Handbuch,  in  loco. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  215 


Son  antedates  that  of  every  creature 
irdcrr)<s  AtT/o-ew?,  Col.  i.  15),  and  who  existed  before  the 
universe  was  created  (#at  ayro?  ea-nv  irpo  irdvrwv, 
Col.  i.  17).  Previous  to  his  incarnation  he  existed  in 
a  divine  form  of  being  (eV  pop^y  0eov,  Phil.  ii.  6), 
which  he  however  surrendered  for  a  servant-form 
(/j,op(f>r)  8ov\ovt  ii.  7),  since  he  did  not  consider  the 
equality  with  God  (TO  elvai  laa  0ee3)  which  he  enjoyed 
something  to  be  grasped  and  held  (jov^  dpTray/j,ov 
rjyija-aToy  in  a  selfish  spirit,  but  on  the  contrary,  chose 
to  surrender  the  godlike  dignity  which  was  his,  by 
divesting  himself  of  his  divine  mode  of  being,  thus 
renouncing  for  the  time  his  equal  dignity  with  God 
and  taking  on  the  human  servant-form.  The  terms 
"  form  of  God  "  and  "  equality  with  God  "  I  take  to  be 
substantially  equivalent  here,  and  regard  them  as  de- 
scribing the  dignity  of  which  Christ  is  said  in  his 
humiliation  to  have  emptied  himself.  For  the  vari- 
ous shades  of  meaning  which  different  interpreters 
find  in  this  celebrated  passage,  I  must  refer  to  the 
critical  commentaries.1  The  main  point  to  be  noted 
in  the  interpretation  is  that  the  translation  in  our 
older  English  version,  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God,"  —  that  is,  considered  it  no  presump- 
tion to  claim  equality  with  God,  —  is  incorrect,  since  it 
is  clearly  the  disposition  of  Christ  which  led  him  to  his 
humiliation,  and  not  his  right  to  claim  divine  honors, 

1  I  may  here  specially  mention  a  lucid  exposition  of  the  whole 
passage  by  Prof.  A.  B.  Bruce  in  his  Humiliation  of  Chri$t,  Lec- 
ture I. 


216  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

which  is  in  point  for  the  apostle's  argument.  To  say 
that  Christ  was  conscious  of  the  right  to  equality  with 
God,  but  humbled  himself,  makes  both  an  awkward 
statement  and  an  unnatural  antithesis.  If  this  were 
meant,  the  apostle  would  have  needed  to  write : 
"Nevertheless  [ov  ^v  a\Xa,  vice  a\\a\  he  emptied 
himself."  There  is  a  perfect  appropriateness,  how- 
ever, in  the  contrast  as  presented  in  the  other 
interpretation :  so  far  from  eagerly  grasping  and 
holding  his  equality  with  God,  so  far  from  insist- 
ing upon  the  advantages  connected  with  his  divine 
form  of  being,  he  voluntarily  deprived  himself  of 
them.1 

This  self-exinanition  of  Christ  was  accomplished 
by  his  coming  into  human  form  (6/io«o/u,a  avdpanraiv, 
a-xfjfjua  <o<?  avOpcofros)  and  freely  subjecting  himself  to 
the  weaknesses  of  mortal  flesh  (Col.  i.  22;  Eph.  ii.  15). 
Following  the  kenosis  as  its  natural  and  intended  con- 
sequence, came  the  humiliation  (raTretWtrt?),  which 
was  realized  in  his  submission  of  himself  to  the  shame- 
ful death  of  the  cross.  It  will  not  escape  the  notice 
of  the  careful  reader  that  the  context  of  the  passage 
makes  it  evident  that  it  was  the  willingness  of  Christ 
to  humble  himself  to  human  conditions  and  limita- 
tions which  it  is  Paul's  primary  purpose  to  bring  out 

1  The  R.  V.  renders,  "counted  it  not  a  prize,"  — a  rendering 
which  seems  to  me  to  be  peculiarly  ambiguous,  and  to  stand  mid- 
way between  the  two  interpretations  which  have  been  referred  to. 
The  revisers  add  in  the  margin  the  rendering  explained  above, 
"  a  thing  to  be  grasped." 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  217 

as  furnishing  the  supreme  illustration  and  lesson  of 
self-sacrifice.1 

This  picture  of  the  condescension  of  Christ  is  suc- 
ceeded by  a  description  of  his  exaltation  to  the  heav- 
enly seat  of  honor  and  power.  In  return  for  the 
Redeemer's  free  giving  of  himself  to  humiliation  and 
death,  God  has  elevated  him  to  the  mediatorial  throne 
and  conferred  upon  him  a  name  which  is  above  all 
others  (the  title  and  dignity  expressed  in  Kvpios 
'Irjcrovs  X/HCTTO?,  verse  11),  to  the  end  that  all  crea- 
tures in  heaven,  earth,  and  the  under-world  should 
acknowledge  his  authority  and  bow  in  submission  to 
his  will  (verses  9-11).  This  exaltation  is  elsewhere 
more  particularly  described  as  a  sitting  at  the  right 
hand  of  God  (Col.  iii.  1 ;  Eph.  i.  20-22),  the  position 
of  honor  and  favor.  There  in  the  regions  of  heav- 
enly glory  and  power  (eV  rot?  e-Trovpaviois,  —  the 
characteristic  expression  of  Ephesians),  elevated  to 
supreme  headship  over  the  kingdom  of  redemption 
and  with  sovereign  authority  over  all  terrestrial 

1  The  thoughts  of  the  passage  may  be  analyzed  and  tabulated 
thus :  — 

I.  Description  of  Christ's  pre-incarnate  state, 
os  fv  /xop0J7  6eov ;  TO  eivat  "ura  $eo>. 

II.  His  disposition  not  to  retain  the  advantages  of  that  state. 
(TO  (ppovelv  6  tv  X/LHOTW  'irjcrov  r/vJ) 

oi>x  dpnayfjiov  fjyija-aTO  TO  tlvai  'Laa  £«<£;  eavrov  intv(i><rcv. 

III.  In  what  his  kenosis  consisted. 

fj.op<p!]i>   dovXov  Aa/joH/.   (v  6/ioto>/icm  av6pamu>v  ytvofifvos,    /ecu 
cr^/idTi  (vptSfis  wf  avdpanros. 

IV.  The  humiliation. 

ysvopcvos  vrnjKoor  /itXP*  Qavdrov,  Qavdrov  fie  oravpov. 


218  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

powers,  he  will  continue  to  fulfil  his  "ministry  of 
reconciliation  "  until  the  purposes  of  God's  redeeming 
love  to  man  shall  be  accomplished. 

The  dignity  of  Christ's  person  as  the  seat  of  all 
divine  fulness  (7rX??/>a>/ia)  of  life  and  power,  in  oppo- 
sition to  certain  Gnostic  speculations  concerning 
angels  and  other  media  of  revelation  which  had  in- 
vaded the  "  churches  of  the  Lycus,"  l  is  more  empha- 
sized in  these  epistles  than  the  specific  doctrine  of 
his  sacrifice.  This  finds  place,  however,  in  such  state- 
ments as  that  "  Christ  loved  you,  and  gave  himself 
up  for  us,  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  an 
odor  of  a  sweet  smell  "  (Eph.  v.  2).  He  speaks  also 
of  the  "  afflictions  of  Christ "  as  continuing  and  being 
completed  in  his  mystical  body,  the  Church  (Col.  i. 
24).  In  Phil.  iii.  10-12,  he  appears  to  treat  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Christ  in  an  ethical  sense,  and  to 
represent  the  life  of  holiness  under  the  figure  of  par- 
ticipation in  them.  He  wishes  to  attain  the  perfected 
spiritual  life  contemplated  in  the  "  high  calling  of 
God  in  Christ  Jesus  "  (verse  14),  of  which  he  falls 
so  far  short  (verses  12-14),  by  experiencing  in  his 
own  person  the  sufferings,  death,  and  resurrection; 
that  is,  by  attaining  the  spiritual  life  which  these  are 
able  to  secure.  We  thus  meet  again  in  this  passage 
the  peculiar  mystical  identification  of  the  procuring 

1  For  a  full  account  of  the  condition  of  these  churches,  so  far 
as  it  is  known,  and  of  the  nature  of  the  heresy  which  had  gained 
some  currency  among  them,  see  Bishop  Lightfoot's  essay  on 
those  subjects  in  his  Commentary  on  Colossians. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  219 

causes  of  salvation  with  their  results,  in  accordance 
with  which  the  results  are  described  in  terms  of  the 
causes.1  It  will  be  noticed  that  there  is  in  these 
epistles  no  dogmatic  development  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  sacrifice,  but  that  it  is  contemplated  either 
as  a  thank-offering  to  God,  or  as  the  type  of  that  self- 
giving  which  is  the  duty  of  Christians,  and  which 
alone  opens  the  way  to  perfection  of  life. 

The  characteristic  form  in  which  the  thought  of 
Christ's  saving  work  here  appears  is  that  of  reconcili- 
ation, the  restoration  of  harmony  where  there  had 
been  estrangement.  This  appears  in  two  applica- 
tions,—  to  the  relations  of  the  Jewish  and  Gentile 
world  in  Ephesians,  and  to  the  relations  of  man  and 
God  in  Colossians.  The  Gentiles,  who  were  at  one 
time  "  separate  from  Christ,  alienated  from  the  com- 
monwealth of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  cove- 
nants of  the  promise"  (Eph.  ii.  12),  are  now  restored, 
and  placed  upon  the  same  plane  of  privilege  with  the 
Jews,  by  the  death  of  Christ,  which  was  for  both 
alike,  and  in  the  benefits  of  which  both  equally  share 
(ii.  13).  Christ,  by  appearing  in  human  flesh,  has 
united  these  two  divisions  of  humanity  into  one  fam- 
ily ;  he  has  broken  down  "  the  middle  wall  of  parti- 
tion" which  stood  between  them, — a  separation  which 
was  occasioned  alike  by  the  godlessness  of  the  Gen- 
tile world  and  by  the  Jews'  particularistic  interpre- 
tation of  the  divine  purpose  in  their  history  and 
the  selfish  spirit  with  which  they  regarded  their 

1  Cf.  the  comments  on  Paul's  mysticism  in  chap.  ii.  pp.  32-40. 


220  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

privileges.  The  mutual  enmity  which  thus  existed 
between  Jew  and  Gentile  Christ  has  abolished  by 
doing  away  with  the  Jewish  legal  system,  —  "the 
law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances,"  — 
and  introducing  the  universal  spiritual  law  of  love, 
which  can  never  become  a  means  of  separation,  but 
must  always  be  a  bond  of  union  among  men.  Thus 
by  his  death  for  all  men  on  the  cross,  he  binds  men 
together  in  organic  unity  in  the  spiritual  common- 
wealth of  which  he  is  the  founder  and  head  (Eph.  ii. 
14-16). 

He  has  also  by  "  the  blood  of  his  cross  "  reconciled 
to  God  (or,  to  himself;  so  R.  Schmidt,  Weiss1)  both 
mankind  and  the  world  of  angelic  beings  (Col.  i.  20 
«<?.).  There  are  no  indications  in  these  epistles  as  to 
the  way  in  which  Christ's  death  on  the  cross  accent 
plished  this  restoration  of  the  harmony  between  man 
and  God,  which  had  been  broken  by  sin.  This  prob- 
lem did  not  here  demand  a  direct  consideration.  It 
is  enough  to  assert,  as  against  the  speculation  con- 
cerning revelation  through  angelic  powers  or  orders 
of  being,  that  Christ,  as  the  head  of  the  spiritual 
creation,  is  the  agent  through  whom  is  accomplished, 
not  only  the  reconciliation  of  man  to  God,  but  also 
the  bringing  of  these  supermundane  orders  of  crea- 
tion into  their  right  relation  to  God. 

The  thought  of  Christ's  headship  over  the  Church 

1  Die  paulinische  Christologie,  p.  184 ;  Bib.  The.ol.  §  104  a, 
note  3.  Per  contra,  Meyer,  Lightfoot,  and  Ellicott,  Commentaries 
in  loco. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  221 

finds  frequent  expression  in  Ephesians  and  Colossians 
in  opposition  to  the  depreciation  of  Christ  by  the  false 
teachers.  "  He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the  Church ; 
who  is  the  beginning,  the  firstborn  from  the  dead ; 
that  in  all  things  he  might  have  the  pre-eminence  '; 
(Col.  i.  18 ;  fff.  Eph.  i.  22).  In  Ephesians  (iv.  7-13) 
Christ  is  pictured  as  distributing  gifts  to  believers, 
and  assigning  to  them  the  various  functions  which 
they  are  to  exercise  in  the  Church.  The  aim  of  this 
bestowment  is  that  the  body  may  be  built  up  into 
strength  and  symmetry  ;  that  the  various  members 
of  the  spiritual  commonwealth  may  grow  up  into 
likeness  to  him  who  is  its  head,  that  is,  Christ 
(verses  14, 15).  This  relation  is  also  used  to  illus- 
trate the  nature  of  marriage,  and  to  enforce  the  duty 
of  subjection  on  the  part  of  the  wife  and  of  love  on 
the  part  of  the  husband  (Eph.  v.  22-25). 

The  "  cosmical  significance  of  Christ,"  as  the  doc- 
trine of  his  relation  to  the  universe  has  been  called, 
has  already  been  touched  upon  in  connection  with 
those  passages  which  represent  his  redeeming  work 
as  affecting  the  relations  to  God  (or  to  himself)  of 
the  world  of  angelic  beings.  A  characteristic  formula, 
in  which  are  gathered  up  the  various  thoughts  re- 
garding the  pre-eminent  station  of  Christ  in  the 
Church  and  the  world,  is  that  of  Eph.  i.  10,  where  it 
is  said  that  God's  purpose  is  "  to  sum  up  all  things  in 
Christ  "  (dvaKe(f>a\aia)cracrdai  TO,  irdvra  ev  T&>  X/MO-TOJ), 
in  the  ultimate  outcome  of  his  gracious  work  for  man ; 
that  is,  to  bring  again  into  unity  and  harmony  (for 


222  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

himself ;  note  the  middle  voice)  in  Christ  all  things 
and  beings  both  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  Christ  is 
thus  presented  as  the  bond  of  unity  among  the  parts 
of  the  universe  which  had  been  separated  by  sin,  — 
the  One  in  whom  they  are  to  be  brought  into  that  har- 
mony which  is  the  goal  of  the  economy  of  grace. 

*'  The  redeeming  work  of  Jesus  Christ  (cf.  Col.  i.  20) 
was  designed  to  annul  again  this  divided  state  in  the 
universe,  which  had  arisen  through  sin  in  heaven  and 
upon  earth,  and  to  re-establish  the  unity  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  in  heaven  and  on  earth ;  so  that  this  gathering  to- 
gether again  should  rest  on  and  have  its  foundations  in 
Christ  as  the  central  point  of  union  and  support,  without 
which  it  could  not  emerge  "  (Meyer  on  Eph.  i.  10). l 

Weiss  has  truly  remarked  that  in  these  later  letters 
it  is  Christ  who  is  represented  as  the  goal  of  the 
world,  while  in  the  earlier  the  final  issue  of  re- 
demption is  that  God  becomes  "  all  in  all "  (jjrdvra 
ev  Tracrw,  1  Cor.  xv.  28),  since  all  things  have  been 
created  "  for  him "  (et?  avrov,  Rom.  xi.  36  ;  1  Cor. 
viii.  6).2  This  fact  may  be  noted  as  illustrating  the 
fuller  development  of  Paul's  Christology  in  his  later 
reflections  upon  the  institute  of  grace. 

We  have  seen  that  the  idea  of   Christ's  personal 

1  On  the  question  whether  this  and  similar  passages,  such  as 
Col.  i.  20,  imply  the  idea  of  universal  redemption,  the  final  bring- 
ing back  of  all  sinful  beings  to  God,  see  Meyer  on  Eph.  i.  10, 
Remark  2.  This  question  will  meet  us  again  in  the  study  of  the 
Pauline  eschatology. 

a  Bib.  Theol.  §  103  b. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  223 

existence  before  his  coming  into  the  world,  and  in- 
deed before  creation  itself,  pervades  Paul's  repre- 
sentations of  his  person  and  work.  This  fact  is  com- 
monly recognized  by  candid  scholars  who  do  not 
themselves  accept  the  divinity  and  pre-existence  of 
Christ,  —  such  as  Biedermann,  Ritschl,  and  Pflei- 
derer.  These  writers  occupy  themselves  with  ex- 
planations of  the  development  in  the  apostle's  mind, 
and  in  the  early  Church  generally,  of  these  be- 
liefs. For  Biedermann  the  motif  of  the  doctrine  of 
pre-existence  in  Paul's  Christology  is  found  in  the 
necessity  of  making  Christ  antedate  the  Old  Testa- 
ment system.1  In  Ritschl's  view  the  idea  of  Christ's 
essential  Deity  is  born  of  the  high  estimate  which  the 
Church  put  upon  the  work  accomplished  by  Christ.2 
Pfleiderer  explains  the  doctrine  of  pre-existence  as  a 
reflex  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  exaltation,  —  an  in- 
ference which  Paul's  mind  must  draw  in  order  to 
hold  and  justify  his  conception  of  the  present  heav- 
enly glory  of  Christ.  He  expresses  it  in  these  words : 
"  That  which  had  happened  in  time  through  the  ex- 
altation, demanded,  in  order  that  it  might  stand  fast 
for  the  Christian  consciousness  as  an  unconditional 
certainty  and  necessity,  a  deeper  ground  in  the  time- 
less existence  of  the  heavenly  world,  in  pre-exist- 
ence." 8  The  motive  of  the  doctrine  he  explains  thus : 

1  Dogmatik,  p.  236. 

2  Die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  und  Versohnung, 
hi.  §§  44,  45,  passim. 

*  Der  Paulinismus,  p.  136,  1  Aufl. ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  136. 


224  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

"  And  this  mode  of  thought  explains  itself  to  us  very 
simply  from  the  source  from  which  the  whole  pre- 
existence-idea  in  general  is  derived ;  that  is,  the  re- 
flection thrown  back  into  the  past  from  the  picture 
under  which  the  fantasy  of  Paul  and  of  the  whole 
Christian  community  thought  of  the  exalted  and 
glorified  Christ  as  at  present  living  in  heaven."  *  It 
is  also  a  part  of  this  view  that,  since  the  idea  of  the 
pre-existent  Christ  is  but  the  reflex  image  of  the  ex- 
alted Messiah,  he  must  have  been  conceived  of  in  his 
pre-existence  as  man,  —  "  the  pneumatic  man." a 

We  are  here  concerned  with  the  exposition  of  the 
Pauline  Christology,  and  not  with  speculations  in 
regard  to  its  origin.  But  it  should  be  noticed  that 
the  theories  which  have  just  been  referred  to,  assume 
that  the  apostle  taught  the  personal  pre-existence  of 
Christ.  The  manner  in  which  his  conception  of 
Christ's  person  was  developed  may  have  corresponded, 
more  or  less  closely,  to  that  process  of  reflection 
which  Pfleiderer  has  sketched  in  the  passages  which 
I  have  quoted  from  the  first  edition  of  Der  Paulin- 
ismus.  Paul's  idea  of  Christ's  pre-existence  would 
more  naturally  originate  in  his  view  of  him  as  the 
Exalted  One  than  in  any  historic  information  re- 

1  Ibid.  p.  141  ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  140.  In  the  second  edition 
Pfleiderer  has  substituted  for  this  explanation  the  theory  that 
Paul's  conception  of  the  person  of  Christ  was  a  composite  of 
Jewish  Meesianic  ideas  and  Alexandrian  speculation.  See 
pp.  115-123. 

a  Ibid.  p.  140  ;  2  Aufl.  p.  118;  Eng.  tr.  i.  139;  per  contra,  cf. 
Weiss,  Bib.  Theol  §  79  a,  note  3. 


THE  PERSON  OF  CHRIST  225 

garding  the  circumstances  attending  his  birth.  If 
the  thought  of  his  pre-existence  was  developed  by  in- 
ference from  that  of  his  heavenly  glory,  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  former  was  a  far-fetched  conclusion, 
and  secondary  in  significance.  A  candid  considera- 
tion of  his  language  renders  it  certain  that  the  work 
of  salvation  was,  in  the  apostle's  view,  grounded  in 
the  eternal  purpose  of  God  and  in  the  willingness 
of  Christ  to  come  to  earth  to  execute  that  purpose. 
The  conception  of  his  pre-mundane  existence  is  there- 
fore absolutely  fundamental  in  Paul's  conception  of 
the  person  and  work  of  the  Redeemer. 

These  elements  of  doctrine  supply  the  material  for 
the  great  problems  concerning  the  person  of  Christ 
and  the  Trinity  with  which  doctrinal  theology  has  to 
deal.  If,  on  the  one  hand,  these  problems  are  in- 
evitably forced  upon  theology  by  the  apostle's  lan- 
guage, it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  certain  that  he  has 
himself  attempted  no  solution  of  them.  On  both 
these  points  most  interpreters  will  concur  with  Weiss 
when  he  says, — 

"  As  the  divine  eternal  existence  of  Christ  in  his  pre- 
existence  did  not  forbid  his  relation  to  God  from  being 
regarded  as  that  of  a  Son,  with  the  subordination  which 
is  naturally  involved  in  it,  so  the  eventual  subordination  of 
the  Son  to  the  Father  (1  Cor.  xv.  28)  by  no  means  excludes 
the  dignity  of  the  Exalted  Christ.  For  our  Christological 
consideration  there  now  comes  in,  of  course,  the  problem 
how  we  have  to  conceive  of  this  relation  of  the  Divine  Son 
to  the  Father  in  his  absolute  sovereignty  over  all,  apart 

15 


226  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

from  the  Son's  position  with  respect  to  the  work  of  re- 
demption, as  well  as  previous  to  the  creation  of  the  world 
and  apart  from  his  mediatorial  position  in  that  work.  But 
Paul  has  not  considered  this  problem,  and  it  remains  alto- 
gether vain  to  attempt  to  elicit  from  him  statements 
regarding  an  immanent  Trinity ;  in  saying  which,  the 
question  whether  the  teaching  of  the  Church  has  with 
justice  advanced  to  that  doctrine  is,  of  course,  in  no  way 
prejudged."1 

1  Bib.  Theol.  §  79  d. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  DOCTRINE   OF  REDEMPTION 

THE  restoration  of  man  to  the  favor  and  fellowship 
of  God,  from  which  he  had  been  separated  by  sin,  is 
grounded,  according  to  the  Pauline  theology,  in  the 
eternal  purpose  of  God's  love.  In  the  death  of  Christ 
for  sinful  men  God  is  commending  or  confirming 
((Tvvia-Trja-ev,  Rom.  v.  8)  his  love  toward  them.  His 
gift  of  Christ  is  so  great  a  proof  of  his  love  that  the 
apostle  concludes,  arguing  from  the  greater  to  the 
less,  that  he  will  not  withhold  anything  from  those 
whom  he  has  chosen  in  him  (Rom.  viii.  32  ;  cf.  Eph. 
i.  4).  It  is  because  God  is  "  rich  in  mercy,"  and  "  on 
account  of  the  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  "  men,  that 
they  have  been  quickened  into  new  life  and  raised  up 
into  fellowship  with  Christ  in  his  glory  (Eph.ii.  4,  5). 
This  redeeming  work  is  "  according  to  the  eternal 
purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  "  (Eph. 
iii.  11),  in  whom  believers  were  chosen  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world  (i.  4). 

Christ  is  the  mediator  of  this  salvation,  which  he 
accomplishes  primarily  by  his  death.  "  We  were  re- 
conciled to  God  through  the  death  of  his  Son"  (Rom. 


228  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

v.  10),  who  "  died  for  all "  (2  Cor.  v.  15).  The 
instrument  of  this  death  is  often  put  by  metonymy 
for  the  death  itself,  and  salvation  is  said  to  be  by  the 
cross.  "  The  word  of  the  cross  "  (1  Cor.  i.  18)  accord- 
ingly forms  the  substance  of  Paul's  message ;  he  will 
glory  only  in  the  cross  (Gal.  vi.  14),  and  will  have 
but  one  object  of  knowledge  and  interest,  —  "  Jesus 
Christ,  and  him  crucified  "  (1  Cor.  ii.  2).  It  is  this 
doctrine  of  Christ's  death  for  sin  which  is  "  the  power 
of  God"  (1  Cor.  i.  18),  although  to  the  Jew,  who 
looked  for  salvation  through  some  outward  demon- 
stration of  divine  might,  and  to  the  Greek,  who 
sought  the  way  of  life  in  acute  speculations  concern- 
ing God  and  man,  it  appeared  to  be  without  meaning 
or  value. 

Our  first  inquiry  is,  What  was  the  genesis  of  this 
doctrine  which  was  so  contrary  to  the  Jewish  modes 
of  thought  as  to  be  the  great  obstacle  (Gal.  v.  11 ; 
vi.  12)  in  the  way  of  belief  on  Jesus  as  the 
Messiah.1 

It  is  certain  that  Paul  could  never  have  accepted 
the  idea  that  the  death  of  Jesus  had  a  saving  signifi- 
cance until  he  had  been  convinced  by  unmistakable 
evidence  of  his  Messiahship.  This  assurance,  gained 
in  the  experience  on  the  way  to  Damascus,  would 

1  In  illustration  of  the  repugnance  of  the  Jewish  mind  to  the 
idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  see  Weber,  Die  Lehren  des  Talmud, 
cap.  xxii.,  entitled  Die  Erlosung  Israels  durch  den  Messias.  The 
substance  of  this  chapter  may  be  found  translated  and  condensed 
in  The  Old  Testament  Student  for  October,  1888. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  229 

compel  the  effort  not  only  to  reconcile  the  death  of 
Christ  with  the  Messianic  idea,  but  to  show  that  it  was 
included  in  that  idea  as  the  very  culmination  of  the 
Messiah's  saving  work.  When  Christ  is  seen  as  the 
true  object  of  faith,  it  must  follow  that  his  death,  for- 
merly regarded  as  the  just  penalty  of  a  malefactor, 
bears  an  essential  relation  to  his  mission ;  death  could 
not  have  been  necessary  for  the  sinless  Christ  unless 
it  was  experienced  on  others'  behalf. 

Various  considerations  would  conspire  to  urge 
Paul's  mind  to  this  conclusion,  when  once  he  had 
accepted  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  His  Old  Testa- 
ment education  would  render  him  familiar  with  the 
idea  of  the  vicarious  death  of  animals  offered  in  sacri- 
fice for  sin.  The  prophecies  of  the  Messiah's  suffer- 
ings would  also  shine  in  a  new  light  for  him  after  his 
conversion,  and  would  tend  to  overcome  his  former 
repugnance  to  that  interpretation  of  them  which 
now  seemed  obvious  and  necessary.  Moreover,  he 
had  become  familiar  with  the  characteristic  tenets  of 
the  Christians.  The  original  apostles  had  taught, 
as  Jesus  had  done,  that  his  death  had  a  saving  power. 
One  of  the  doctrines  which  he  had  received  from  the 
primitive  oral  tradition  was  that  "  he  died  for  our 
sins,  according  to  the  Scriptures"  (1  Cor.  xv.  3). 
From  considerations  like  these  it  may  be  at  least 
partially  accounted  for  that  Paul  regarded  the  death 
of  Christ  as  having  a  wholly  unique  meaning  and 
value.  The  original  apostles  had  been  at  first  dis- 
mayed by  the  death  of  their  Master,  and  had  seen  in 


230 

it  the  destruction  of  all  their  cherished  hopes.  It 
now  became  the  task  of  Paul,  more  than  of  any  other 
man,  to  show  that  Christ's  death,  so  far  from  being 
an  untimely  termination  of  his  work,  was  the  culmi- 
nation of  the  divine  decree  of  salvation,  —  the  event 
in  which,  above  all  others,  his  saving  mission  was 
accomplished. 

Does  the  apostle  conceive  of  Christ's  death,  con- 
sidered as  a  saving  power,  apart  from  other  events  in 
his  experience  and  apart  from  the  course  of  his  life 
in  general  ?  It  is  certain  that  such  a  connection 
of  Christ's  death  with  his  life  and  work  receives  no 
emphasis.  Salvation  is  ascribed  directly  to  his  death 
as  its  procuring  cause.  It  is  maintained  by  some 
that  the  "  one  act  of  righteousness "  (ev  SiKaia>/j.a, 
Rom.  v.  18)  by  which  he  procured  justification  for 
men  may  be  a  collective  designation  for  his  entire 
life  of  obedience  and  holiness.1  But  the  fact  that  it 
is  contrasted  with  the  "  one  trespass  "  (ev  Tra/jaTrrw^a) 
of  Adam  makes  it  more  probable  that  it  denotes  the 
one  definite  act  of  delivering  himself  up  to  death. 

In  Rom.  v.  10  the  apostle  speaks  of  salvation  as 
wrought  by  Christ's  life  (crwdqcroneQa  ev  rfj  £(afj  avrov). 
The  connection,  however,  renders  it  clear  that  he 
there  speaks  of  Christ's  life,  not  as  the  procuring 
cause  of  salvation,  but  as  the  power  by  which  spir- 
itual development,  which  ensues  upon  reconciliation, 
shall  be  completed  in  the  future  world.  As  we  are 

1  So  Xeander,  Planting  and  Training,  Bohn.  ed.  i.  446 ; 
Am.  ed.  p.  409. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  231 

"  justified  by  [or  in]  his  blood,"  so  "  shall  we  be 
saved  from  the  wrath  of  God  through  him  "  (verse  9) ; 
that  is,  we  shall  be  delivered  from  the  penalties  of 
sin  in  the  judgment.  The  meaning  is  that,  having 
been  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  Christ,  we 
shall  be  saved  (in  the  eschatological  sense)  by  reason 
of  our  union  of  faith  and  love  with  him  who  now 
lives  and  reigns  in  the  glory  of  the  Father.  Here 
also  the  initiation  of  the  work  of  salvation  is  directly 
ascribed  to  the  death  of  Jesus. 

It  is  impossible,  however,  to  suppose  that  Paul  con- 
templated the  death  of  Christ  altogether  apart  from 
his  sinless  life  of  obedience  and  sacrifice.  Although 
he  has  not  commented  upon  the  relation  between  the 
saving  power  of  the  Lord's  death  and  his  life,  it  would 
be  difficult  to  combine  the  elements  of  the  apostle's 
teaching  regarding  redemption  into  a  consistent  whole, 
except  upon  the  assumption  that  there  was  for  him  a 
real  and  important  connection  of  this  kind.  He  cer- 
tainly implies  that  the  overthrow  of  the  dominion  of 
sin  in  the  flesh  was  conditioned  upon  the  sinlessness 
of  the  life  of  Jesus  (Rom.  viii.  3).  In  treating  of 
salvation,  where  its  procuring  cause  is  not  directly 
under  consideration,  the  apostle  uses  language  which 
shows  that  the  power  of  Christ's  life  and  person  is  an 
important  factor  in  the  work  of  delivering  man  from 
sin,  as  in  Rom.  viii.  2,  where  freedom  from  the  prin- 
ciple of  sin,  which  leads  to  death,  is  ascribed  to  "  the 
law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  ; "  that  is,  this 
deliverance  is  accomplished  through  the  establishment 


232  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

in  the  heart  of  the  dominion  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
imparts  and  fosters  spiritual  life.  This  new  life  be- 
comes ours  only  when  we  have  entered  into  fellowship 
with  Christ,  and  in  this  sense  it  has  that  fellowship 
as  its  cause  and  ground.  But  even  here  no  other 
efficacious  cause  of  salvation  than  the  death  of  Christ 
is  brought  forward,  since  the  apostle  is  speaking 
rather  of  the  power  by  which  salvation,  considered 
as  a  progressive  work,  is  carried  on,  than  of  its 
initiation. 

A  whole  group  of  passages,  —  already  considered 
in  their  general  character  in  chapter  ii.,  —  in  which 
is  expressed  the  thought  of  an  ethical  dying  with 
Christ  in  his  crucifixion  (for  example,  Rom.  vi.  4,  8 ; 
Gal.  ii.  20 ;  Col.  ii.  20  ;  iii.  3)  might  be  here  considered 
as  illustrating  a  more  subjective  method  of  viewing 
the  moral  renewal  of  man  than  that  which  obtains  in 
Paul's  more  dogmatic  handling  of  the  subject.  It 
will  perhaps  be  sufficient  to  consider  in  detail  one 
passage  of  this  kind  by  way  of  illustration :  2  Cor.  v. 
14  sq.,  — "  For  the  love  of  Christ  constraineth  us ; 
because  we  thus  judge,  that  one  died  for  all,  therefore 
all  died,"  etc.  The  crucial  question  relates  to  the 
meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  therefore  all  died  "  (apa  ol 
Trdvres  airkQavov).  The  older  English  version,  in 
translating,  "  then  were  all  dead,"  evidently  intended 
to  convey  the  idea  that  the  death  of  all  in  sin  was 
meant.  If  Christ  died  for  all  men,  then  must  all 
have  been  dead  in  sin,  else  he  need  not  have  died  for 
their  salvation  ;  thus  he  shows  his  love  for  undeserv- 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  233 


ing  sinners.  The  aorist  tense  (a-Treflewoz;),  however, 
does  not  naturally  yield  this  sense,  but  points  to  a 
dying  of  all  which  was  accomplished  at  a  definite 
past  time.  When  this  happened  is  determined  hy  the 
context  as  the  time  when  Christ  himself  died.1  The 
meaning  then  is,  "  All  died  when  Christ  died."  In 
what  sense  did  all  die  in  and  with  his  death  ?  Two 
answers  are  possible  :  (a)  All  were  under  sentence  of 
death  for  their  sins,  but  Christ  appeared  as  their  sub- 
stitute, and  making  their  case  his  own,  died  in  their 
stead  ;  so  that  the  deserved  death  of  all  may  be  said 
to  have  been  suffered  by  him  in  his  death.  Hence 
all  virtually  died  with  their  representative,  and  paid 
the  penalty  of  sin  in  his  vicarious  death  (so  Weiss 
and,  apparently,  De  Wette  and  Pfleiderer).  (6)  All 
died  to  sin  —  that  is,  in  an  ethical  sense  —  in  and  with 
the  death  of  Christ.  The  moral  renewal  of  mankind, 
which  in  Pauline  phraseology  is  so  often  represented 
as  a  dying  to  sin,  and  which  had  its  efficacious  cause 
in  Christ's  death,  is  spoken  of  as  accomplished  when 
his  death  was  experienced.  It  is  a  mystical  identifi- 
cation in  time  of  cause  and  consequence,  resembling 
that  found  in  Gal.  ii.  20  :  "I  have  been  crucified  with 
Christ,"  and  in  Col.  iii.  3  :  "  For  ye  died,  and  your  life 
is  hid  with  Christ  in  God"  (so  Olshausen,  Meyer, 

1  "  Das  Sterben  zum  Besten  aller  und  das  Sterben  aller  ist  daher 
einfach  in  das  Verhaltniss  von  Grund  und  Folge  gesetzt,  und 
zwar  so,  dass  in  beiden  Fallen  der  Aorist  diesen  Vorgang  als 
einen  einmaligen  und  abgeschlossenen  setzt,"  Heinrici,  Das 
zweite  Sendschreiben  des  Apostel  Paulus  an  die  Korinthier, 
p.  282. 


234  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

Stanley,  Heinrici).  On  this  interpretation,  which 
seems  to  comport  with  all  the  requirements  of  the 
sense  and  to  accord  with  Paul's  frequent  mode  of 
expression  in  treating  the  same  subject,  the  passage 
would  mean  that  the  love  which  Christ  has  had  to  us 
should  be  a  powerful  motive  to  hold  us  faithful  to  his 
service,  inasmuch  as,  since  our  conversion,  we  have 
reached  the  judgment  that  in  his  death  on  our  behalf, 
our  own  moral  death  to  the  old  sinful,  selfish  life  was 
accomplished,  and  that  the  whole  meaning  and  pur- 
pose of  his  death  for  us,  therefore,  urge  us  to  live 
lives  of  unselfishness  and  love. 

The  class  of  passages  to  which  the  one  just  consid- 
ered belongs,  in  which  the  result  of  Christ's  death  is 
contemplated  as  an  ethical  death  to  sin,  and  life  to 
righteousness,  may  be  compared  and  contrasted  with 
those  which  present  the  result  as  a  declaration  of 
acquittal  before  God,  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  sub- 
stitutionary  work  on  man's  behalf.  Pfleiderer  has 
designated  these  two  modes,  or  relations,  in  which 
Paul  presents  the  results  of  Christ's  death  as  the 
"  subjective-anthropological "  and  the  "  objective-theo- 
logical." *  Simpler  designations  would  be  the  ethical 
and  the  juridical  aspects  of  Christ's  redeeming  work. 

It  will  be  our  next  task  to  study  the  way  in  which 
Paul  unfolds  his  doctrine  of  salvation  by  the  death 
or  cross  of  Christ,  and  to  inquire  into  the  grounds  on 
which  that  death  is  held  to  avail  for  man's  salvation. 
The  relation  of  this  more  objective,  juridical  presen- 
1  Der  Paulinismus,  p.  93,  1  Aufl. ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  92. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  235 

tation  of  the  subject  to  the  more  mystical  or  ethical 
view  may  then  be  considered. 

The  locus  classieus  for  this  phase  of  Pauline  teach- 
ing is  Rom.  iii.  24-26 ;  and  all  other  passages  bearing 
upon  the  subject  should  be  studied  in  the  light  of 
this.  Here  the  apostle  asserts  that  believers  are 
justified  freely  (Svpedv)  ;  that  is,  without  the  payment 
of  any  price  on  their  part,  through  the  payment  of 
the  ransom-price  (airoKiirpwai^  which  Christ  has 
made  (verse  24).  The  commercial  terms  of  the  pas- 
sage show  at  once  that  we  are  here  concerned  with 
an  analogy  in  which  the  work  of  Christ  in  delivering 
man  from  sin  is  figuratively  represented  as  the  giving 
of  a  purchase-price  for  their  release,  as  captives  in 
war  were  often  ransomed.  The  death  of  Christ  is 
evidently  the  act  which  is  here  thought  of  as  consti- 
tuting the  purchase.  Whether  the  figure  can  be 
further  pressed  into  service  in  reply  to  the  question 
to  whom  the  ransom  was  paid,  as  in  the  patristic 
theology,  or  in  the  direction  of  indicating  a  quantita- 
tive equivalence  between  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and 
the  penalty  of  sin,  as  in  the  theory  deduced  by  theolo- 
gians from  Anselm,  may  become  pertinent  at  a  later 
stage  of  our  inquiries. 

The  apostle  continues  by  explaining  the  way  in 
which  this  deliverance  was  wrought.  God  publicly 
set  forth  Christ  in  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  as  a 
means  of  reconciliation  (l\ao-Tijpiov)  which  avails  for 
the  individual  on  condition  of  faith  (verse  25).  In- 
terpreters remain  divided  in  respect  to  the  force  of 


236  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  word  l\aa-nfjpiov  in  this  passage.  In  the  Septua- 
gint  TO  i\a<TTr)piov  is  the  name  for  the  Kapporeth,  or 
mercy-seat  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (see  Ex.  xxv. 
17-20),  and  in  the  only  New  Testament  passage,  be- 
sides the  one  now  under  consideration,  where  the  word 
occurs  (Heb.  ix.  5),  it  has  this  signification.  Many 
suppose  this  to  be  its  force  in  our  passage  also.1 
In  this  case  the  apostle's  meaning  would  be  that  God, 
in  subjecting  Christ  to  death,  has  set  him  forth  before 
mankind  as  the  antitypical  mercy-seat,  the  One  in 
whom  the  gracious,  saving  presence  of  God  is  mani- 
fested, and  who  thus  fulfils  the  symbolism  of  the  ark 
and  of  the  sprinkling  of  blood  upon  it  (Ex.  xxv.  22 ; 
Lev.  xvi.  13  «<?.). 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  claimed  that  no  inference 
can  be  drawn  from  the  passage  in  Hebrews  as  to  the 
meaning  here,  because,  while  that  epistle  moves  with- 
in the  circle  of  Old  Testament  ideas,  and  is  strongly 
influenced  by  the  Septuagint  in  a  characteristic  use  of 
Scripture,  this  is  not  the  case  with  Paul.  If  he  meant 
to  designate  the  mercy-seat,  moreover,  the  word  should 
have  had  the  article  (as  in  the  LXX.  and  in  Hebrews) ; 
besides,  the  use  of  such  symbolisms  is  foreign  to  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  it  is  inherently  inappro- 
priate to  designate  Christ  as  the  Kapporeth,  or  lid  of 
the  ark,  —  a  conception  which  does  not  appear  in 
the  New  Testament.  Influenced  by  these  consider- 
ations, many  scholars2  maintain  a  use  of  the  word 

1  For  example,  Cremer,  Ritschl,  Olshausen,  Philippi,  Delitzsch. 
8  For  example,  Morison  (Critical  Exposition  of  Romans  Third), 
Pfleiderer,  Weiss,  Godet,  Thayer's  Lexicon. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  237 

on  Paul's  part  independent  of  the  Septuagint  techni- 
cal meaning,  and  interpret  it  in  accord  with  its  ety- 
mology. "IXao?  (or  i'Xea>?)  means  gracious,  or  favor- 
able ;  i  Aa<7/cecr#cu,  to  render  so,  and,  in  the  passive,  to 
become  so ;  i\ao-Tijpiov,  used  substantively,  would  then 
denote  a  means  of  rendering  favorable,  or  propitious, 
Suhnemittel,  Expiatorium.1  Upon  this  interpretation, 
the  word  might  denote  specifically  an  expiatory  sacri- 
fice (sc.  dvjjua),  or  remain  quite  general  in  signification, 
—  a  question  in  regard  to  which  those  who  accept 
the  explanation  of  the  word  just  given  are  divided. 

This  explanation  in  that  form  of  it  in  which 
i\a<TTijpiov  is  taken  as  quite  general  in  signification, 
seems  to  me  to  have  the  balance  of  probability  in  its 
favor.  In  that  case,  Christ's  death  would  be  repre- 
sented as  a  means  of  reconciling  God  and  man  on 
condition  of  faith  (Sia  Trto-reo)?)  on  man's  part.  Does 
the  operation  of  this  means  of  reconciliation  termi- 
nate upon  God,  or  upon  man,  or  upon  both  ?  This 
inquiry  leads  us  on  to  the  consideration  of  the 
remainder  of  the  passage  and  to  a  comparison  of 
other  passages. 

After  the  assertion  (verse  25")  that  God  had 
made  Christ  by  his  death  a  means  of  reconciliation 
between  himself  and  man,  he  adds  (verse  255)  a  state- 
ment of  the  aim  which  God  had  in  view  in  so  doing 
and  of  the  reason  which  impelled  him  to  the  action 
described.  The  end  was  "  the  manifestation  of  his 

1  Upon  the  use  in  the  New  Testament  of  tXao-pos  and  kindred 
words,  see  Westcott  on  The  Epistles  of  Saint  John,  pp.  85-87. 


238        THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

righteousness "  (ei/Set^t?  rij<;  Sucaioa-vvi]*}  avrov),  and 
the  reason  was  the  "  passing  over  [Trdpeffi^  of  the 
sins  done  aforetime,  in  the  forbearance  of  God."  This 
reconciling  work  of  Christ,  then,  had  the  object  of 
exhibiting  God's  righteousness,  and  was  occasioned 
or  rendered  necessary  by  the  fact  that  God  had  leni- 
ently treated  the  sins  of  mankind  in  pre-Christian 
times,  and  had  thus  exposed  his  moral  government  to 
the  charge  or  suspicion  of  remissness  in  the  punishment 
of  sin  (cf.  Acts  xvii.  30).  "  God  judged  it  necessary, 
on  account  of  the  impunity  so  long  enjoyed  by  those 
myriads  of  sinners  who  succeeded  one  another  on  the 
earth,  at  length  to  manifest  his  justice  by  a  striking 
act,"  etc.1  This  interpretation  of  the  phrase  Sib  rrjv 
irapeaiv  K.  T.  X.,  in  which  most  exegetes  are  now 
agreed,  has  an  important  bearing  upon  the  force  of 
&iKaio<rvvr),  which  is  said  to  have  been  exhibited  by 
Christ's  death.2 

The  manifestation  of  God's  righteousness  is  spoken 
of  as  occasioned  by  a  certain  leniency  in  his  former 
treatment  of  sin.  If  this  manifestation  will  now 
vindicate  the  divine  majesty  against  the  appearance 
or  charge  of  slackness  in  that  respect,  it  must  do 

1  Godet,  Commentary  on  Romans,  p.  156. 

2  Many  of  the  older  interpreters,  as  Luther  and  Calvin,  and 
some  moderns,  as  Hodge,  understood  irdpctris  to  mean  the  same  as 
fifacris,  —  forgiveness,  —  and,  forcing  the  meaning  of  the  preposi- 
tion Sid  (as  if  it  were  tls),  interpreted  the  phrase  to  mean  "in 
order  to  secure  the  forgiveness  of  the  sins  done  aforetime."     This 
misinterpretation  was  adopted  in  our  older  English  version  :  "  for 
the  remission  of  sins  that  are  past." 


THE  DOCTKINE  OF  REDEMPTION  239 

so  by  demonstrating  that  God  is  not  really  remiss 
in  the  treatment  of  sin.  The  righteousness  which  is 
thus  exhibited  must  therefore  be  a  name  for  the  atti- 
tude or  temper  of  God  toward  sin.  It  is  the  law  and 
penalty  side  of  the  divine  nature  which  the  apostle 
has  prominently  in  mind  in  the  use  of  the  word 
"righteousness."  His  statement  means  that  in 
Christ's  violent  death  was  revealed  and  vindicated 
the  punitive  righteousness  of  God  so  as  completely  to 
refute  the  idea  that  he  is  lenient  in  his  feeling  toward 
sin,  and  so  that  the  ends  of  penalty  are  met  by  the 
sufferings  and  death  of  Christ  for  all  who  trust  in 
him  for  salvation.  Hence  Paul  concludes  that  God  is 
shown  in  this  work  of  Christ  to  be  just,  to  retain  his 
holiness  inviolate  as  being  essentially  hostile  to  sin, 
while  he  is  also  the  justifier  of  those  who  accept  for 
themselves  the  exemption  from  penalty  which  another 
method  of  vindicating  the  divine  righteousness  makes 
possible. 

This  interpretation,  which  alone  satisfies  the  terms 
of  the  passage  as  a  whole,  and  renders  all  its  parts 
congruous  with  one  another,  makes  it  highly  probable 
that  iXaa-rripiov  bears  here  its  simple  etymological 
meaning, — a  means  of  rendering  favorable.  The  view 
that  God  made  Christ  a  mercy-seat  —  One  in  whom 
he  revealed  his  gracious  presence — for  the  manifesta- 
tion of  his  righteousness,  could  naturally  interpret  the 
term  "  righteousness  "  only  in  the  sense  of  goodness 
or  graciousness.  But  the  manifestation  of  gracious- 
ness  to  men,  so  far  from  rescuing  the  divine  action 


240  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

from  the  appearance  of  leniency  toward  sin,  would  in 
itself  tend  to  strengthen  the  impression  of  such 
leniency.  This  interpretation  —  which  Ritschl  has 
espoused  and  defended  in  recent  years 1  —  breaks 
down  in  its  application  to  the  terms  of  the  passage 
as  a  whole.  It  will  be  seen  to  be  equally  inconsistent 
with  other  passages. 

In  Gal.  iii.  13  Christ  is  said  to  have  "  become  a 
curse  for  us  "  (yevopevos  virep  rjfiwv  Kardpa)  ',  and  in 
2  Cor.  v.  21  it  is  affirmed  that  God  made  him  to  be 
"sin  on  our  behalf"  (inrep  r)n<av  a^apriav).  The 
first  passage  is  connected  with  the  proof  (verses  10- 
12)  that  under  the  law,  not  a  blessing,  but  a  curse,  is 
experienced,  because  the  law  must  condemn  sin,  yet 
cannot  deliver  man  from  its  guilt  and  power.  This 
curse  which  impended  over  the  Jewish  people  under 
the  legal  system,  Christ  has  taken  away  by  himself 
taking  the  place  of  one  accursed,  and  enduring  the 
penal  sufferings  which  must  otherwise  have  fallen 
upon  those  who  were  under  the  curse  which  the  law 
pronounced. 

The  analogy  which  underlies  this  representation  of 
Christ's  work  is  a  commercial  one.  He  has  bought 
off  by  ransom  (egiyyopaa-ev*)  those  who  were  under  the 
law's  curse.  He  has  paid  a  price  for  their  deliver- 
ance, —  the  endurance  in  his  sufferings  and  death  of 
the  penal  consequences  of  sin.  He  has  taken  on  him- 
self the  curse  with  which  the  law  threatened  sin,  and 

1  Die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  und  VersShnung, 
ii.  169  sq. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  241 

has  thus  illustrated,  in  his  vicarious  death  on  the  cross, 
the  Old  Testament  declaration  (Deut.  xxi.  23)  con- 
cerning the  ignominy  and  shame  attaching  to  such  as 
have  their  bodies  hung  upon  a  stake  or  tree. 

But  Christ  was  "  made  sin  for  us  ; "  that  is,  he  so 
far  took  the  sinner's  place  as  to  suffer  in  his  stead. 
He  was  made,  in  some  sense,  the  bearer  of  the  sinner's 
guilt  and  penalty,  in  order  that  the  sinner  himself 
might  not  bear  it,  but  be  accounted  righteous  upon 
believing  in  Christ.  No  clear  and  definite  meaning 
except  this  can  be  attached  to  the  phrases  "  curse 
for  us,"  and  "  sin  for  us."  In  confirmation  of  this 
position  it  may  be  useful  to  introduce  the  interpre- 
tations of  the  last  passage  which  are  given  by  rep- 
resentative scholars  of  various  theological  opinions. 
Weiss  paraphrases  the  passage  thus,  — 

"  God  has  made  him,  who  did  not  know  sin,  to  be  sin 
in  our  behalf ;  has  looked  upon  him  and  treated  him  as 
if  he  were  a  sinner,  in  order  that  we  might  become  the 
righteousness  of  God  in  him,  —  that  is,  that  on  the 
ground  of  what  happened  to  him,  we  could  be  looked 
upon  and  treated  as  those  whom  God  declares  to  be 
righteous." 1 

Pfleiderer,  after  quoting  the  verse,  adds, — 

"  That  is,  God  has  allowed  his  sinless  Son  to  enter  as 
the  bearer  of  the  guilt  and  penalty  of  sin,  and  by  dying 
to  expiate  its  guilt,  in  order  that  we,  by  virtue  of  our  con- 
nection through  faith  with  Christ  and  by  entering  into  his 

1  Bib.  Theol.  §  80  b. 
16 


242  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

relation  of  sonship  to  God,  may  be  looked  upon  as  justi- 
fied from  this  guilt."  l 

Meyer,  commenting  on  the  passage,  says,  — 

"  Christ  was  actually  exhibited  by  God  as  the  concre- 
tum  of  a/iaprta,  as  d/xaprwAo?,  in  being  subjected  by  him  to 
suffer  the  punishment  of  death.  .  .  .  The  guilt  of  which 
Christ,  made  to  be  sin  and  a  curse  by  God,  appears  as 
bearer,  was  not  his  own  £  p,i)  yvovra  ap.apTiav~\  ;  and  hence 
the  guilt  of  men,  who  through  his  death  were  justified  by 
God,  was  transferred  to  him  ;  consequently  the  justifica- 
tion of  men  is  imputative.  .  .  .  Christ  is  conceived  by 
the  apostle  as  in  reality  the  bearer  of  the  divine  Kardpa, 
and  his  death  as  mors  vicaria  for  the  benefit  [vWp]  of 
sinful  men,  to  be  whose  iXacmyptov  he  was  accordingly 
made  by  God  a  sinner.  As  the  yivc<r6ai  SiKaiocrvvrjv 
took  place  for  men  imputatively,  so  also  did  the 

avrov  take  place  for  Christ  imputatively."  a 


Heinrici  makes  this  comment,  — 

**  Thus  God  accomplishes  an  exchange,  in  that  what 
belongs  to  the  sinner  is  imparted  to  Christ,  and  con- 
versely, what  belongs  to  the  Christ,  to  the  sinner."  * 

It  appears,  then,  that,  according  to  the  apostle,  there 
was  in  Christ's  death  a  revelation  of  the  divine  right- 
eousness in  its  attitude  toward  sin,  —  an  expression 
of  the  divine  wrath  (0/379  tfeoO,  Rom.  i.  18),  of  which 


1  Das  Urchristenthum,  p.  225. 
a  Commentary  in  loco. 


«  Das  zweite  Sendschreiben  des  Apostel  Paulus  an  die  Korin* 
thier,  p.  808. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  243 

men  are,  by  reason  of  their  sins,  the  object.1  The  in- 
ference  is  inevitable  that  the  reconciliation  which 
Christ  effected  between  God  and  man  did  not  concern 
merely  one,  but  both  of  the  parties  to  it.  It  affected 
man  so  as  to  bring  him  to  God;  but  it  also  con- 
ditioned the  divine  procedure  and  rendered  a  satisfac- 
tion to  the  demands  of  law  and  righteousness  which 
call  for  the  punishment  of  sin.  Two  problems,  then, 
press  for  solution  :  (a)  In  what  sense  is  Christ's 
death  for  ws,  and  his  sufferings  instead  of  our  punish- 
ment ?  and  (6)  How  does  his  vicarious  work  meet 
the  demands  of  the  law,  and  satisfy  the  ethical  re- 
quirements of  God's  holy  nature  in  respect  to  sin? 
Neither  of  these  inquiries  is  explicitly  answered  by 
any  statement  contained  in  Paul's  letters.  The  prob- 
lem is,  What  view  on  these  points  best  comports  with 
his  affirmations,  and  with  their  clear  implications  ? 

Can  the  apostle  in  teaching  that  Christ  died  for 
our  sins,  or  was  made  sin  for  us,  mean  that  he 
bore  the  literal  penalty  of  our  sins  ;  that  is,  that  his 
sufferings  had  the  moral  quality  of  punishment  for 
him  ?  Though  he  appeared  in  the  sinner's  place  and 
suffered  in  his  stead,  can  he  be  regarded  as  having 
been  punished  ?  If  he  was  punished,  it  can  only  have 


1  It  is  generally  agreed  that  c'^dpot  Svrts  ,  K-  T.  X.  (Rom.  v.  10), 
is  passive,  not  active,  in  signification,  —  "  when  we  were  the  ob- 
jects of  God's  wrath,"  not  "  when  we  were  hostile  to  God."  This 
meaning  alone  is  natural  for  e^6pol  as  the  counterpart  of  5iKaio>- 
6ivTfs,  and  is  favored  by  the  contrast  of  (%dpoi  and  dycTrtjToi  in 
Rom.  xi.  28.  So  Meyer,  Pfleiderer,  Weiss,  vs.  Baur,  Ritschl, 
Weber. 


244  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

been  upon  one  of  two  grounds, — either  upon  that  of 
ill-desert,  which  would  contradict  Paul's  whole  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  person,  or  upon  the  ground  of  a 
transfer  of  penalty.  But  punishment  implies  guilt ; 
and  guilt  attaches  to  the  sin  committed  and  to  him 
who  commits  it.  A  punishment  of  Christ  instead  of 
the  guilty  party  would  imply  the  literal  transfer  of  the 
guilt  of  man  to  him  ;  for  punishment  where  there  is 
no  guilt  would  be  an  injustice.  But  guilt  is  the 
inseparable  consequence  of  the  sin  done,  and  cannot 
attach  to  an  innocent  person.  There  can,  then,  be  no 
punishment  where  there  is  no  guilt,  and  there  can  be 
no  guilt  where  there  is  no  ill-desert.  To  predicate 
punishment  of  Christ's  sufferings  would  mean  either 
to  predicate  guilt  of  him,  which  would  deny  his  sin- 
lessness,  or  to  affirm  a  transfer  of  others'  guilt  to  him 
in  such  a  sense  that  he  became  the  object  of  God's 
wrath,  which  is  contrary  to  the  nature  of  guilt,  and 
confuses  all  moral  distinctions  regarding  sin,  guilt, 
and  penalty.  That  Paul  cannot  have  intended  to 
affirm  that  Christ  was  punished  is  a  priori  probable 
from  the  obvious  implications  of  such  a  statement. 
His  words  have  been  thought  to  involve  this  view; 
but  if  they  had  been  so  intended,  they  would  surely 
have  been  made  more  explicit.  There  is  no  such 
statement  as  that  Christ  died  instead  of  (aim)  us ;  he 
is  said  to  have  died  on  our  behalf  (t»7re/>),  or  on  behalf 
of  our  sins.  If  the  statement  that  he  "  became  a 
curse  for  us  "  is  urged  as  necessarily  meaning  that  he 
came  under  a  personal  sense  of  God's  displeasure,  — 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  245 

that  is,  was  punished  by  literally  suffering  the  penal  in- 
fliction of  the  curse  due  to  sin,  —  it  must  then  be  said 
that  the  kindred  phrase  "  God  made  him  to  be  sin  for 
us  "  is  to  be  as  rigidly  interpreted  and  cannot  mean 
less  than  that  God  made  him  a  sinner,  —  a  meaning 
which  is,  however,  excluded  by  the  next  phrase, 
"  who  knew  no  sin."  A  method  of  interpretation 
cannot  be  applied  in  one  case  which  in  a  kindred 
instance  would  be  self-contradictory. 

If  Christ's  sufferings  cannot  have  been  the  quanti- 
tative equivalent,  nor  have  had  the  moral  quality,  of 
the  punishment  due,  in  the  moral  order,  to  sin,  in 
what  sense  can  they  have  been  a  substitute  for  man's 
punishment  ?  They  can  have  been  so  only  in  the 
sense,  that,  though  not  the  same  in  quantity  or  quality, 
they  answered  the  essential  moral  ends  of  punish- 
ment. In  place  of  the  punishment  of  the  sinner, 
there  took  place  a  gracious  substitution  of  another 
method  of  vindicating  and  satisfying  the  moral  re- 
quirements of  law  and  holiness.  The  substitution  of 
Christ  for  us,  therefore,  does  not  mean  that  he  stood 
in  our  place  and  took  our  punishment,  as  an  innocent 
man  might  stand  beneath  the  descending  weapon 
which  was  to  avenge  a  civil  crime,  —  a  substitution 
which  would  be  merely  mechanical,  and  without  ethi- 
cal value  as  affecting  the  guilt  of  the  offender ;  nor 
does  it  mean  that  he  personally  assumed  our  guilt  and 
suffered  its  punishment,  —  a  substitution  which,  if 
not  impossible,  would  be  inherently  unjust.  Christ's 
sufferings  and  death  for  us  mean  the  substitution  of 


246  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

another  course  of  divine  action  instead  of  the  inflic- 
tion of  penalty.  This  method  is  not  a  merely  lenient 
treatment,  an  unconditional  forgiveness  of  sin,  in- 
stead of  a  penal  procedure  against  it.  It  is  a  course 
of  action  which  effectually  rescues  God's  action  in 
the  treatment  of  sin  from  the  charge  or  appearance  of 
laxness,  and  proves  a  real  evSetgis  rfjs  SiKatoavvi)? 
avrov  (Rom.  iii.  25,  26). 

If  Christ's  sufferings  and  death  are  a  substitute  for 
man's  punishment,  they  must,  equally  with  that  pun- 
ishment, reveal,  vindicate,  and  satisfy  the  divine  right- 
eousness by  furnishing  an  effective  demonstration  of 
the  divine  hatred  of  sin.  That  only  can  be  a  substi- 
tute for  punishment  which  meets  its  moral  ends.  If 
the  penalty  of  sin  is  to  be  remitted,  this  can  be  done 
only  on  condition  that  some  other  way  of  procedure  is 
found  which  shall  be  consistent  with  the  inviolable 
holiness  of  God  and  which  shall  manifest  and 
vindicate  it.  To  say,  however,  that  holiness  must 
inevitably  punish  is  either  to  exclude  forgiveness  alto- 
gether or  to  declare  that  Christ  was  punished.  It 
would  be  more  consonant  with  Paul's  thought  to  say 
that  the  divine  holiness,  the  self -preservative  attri- 
bute in  God,  must  be  manifested  against  sin ;  punish- 
ment of  the  sin  itself  is  one  such  manifestation ;  in 
the  work  of  Christ  for  men,  God  has  chosen  and  pur- 
sued another  in  its  stead,  so  that  the  punishment  may 
be  remitted  without  laxness  toward  the  sin  and  with- 
out its  endurance  by  an  innocent  person. 

In  this  view,  Christ  becomes  a  curse  for  us,  not  in 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  247 

the  sense  of  becoming  the  object  of  divine  wrath,  but 
in  the  sense  that  he  substituted  his  suffering  for  the 
penalty  which  threatened  man.  He  was  made  sin  for 
us,  not  by  having  a  sinner's  experience  of  punishment, 
but  by  taking  the  place  of  the  sinner  in  an  experience 
of  suffering  which,  being  instead  of  the  sinner's  pun- 
ishment, met  the  ends  for  which  punishment  exists  in 
the  moral  order  of  the  world.  The  vicariousness  of 
Christ's  work  does  not  consist  in  the  substitution  of 
Christ's  punishment  for  ours,  but  in  the  substitution 
of  his  sufferings  for  our  punishment. 

How  those  sufferings  can  be  regarded  as  a  moral 
equivalent  for  punishment  and  as  answering  its  ends, 
is  a  question  for  doctrinal  theology  and  the  central 
problem  of  the  atonement.  The  apostle  has  nowhere 
touched  directly  upon  it.  It  is  inseparable,  however, 
in  a  critical  inquiry,  from  his  teaching  regarding 
substitution,  and  especially  does  it  force  itself  upon 
the  mind  in  every  attempt  to  answer  the  question, 
What  can  be  meant  by  the  setting  forth  of  Christ 
as  a  i\atmjpiov  in  the  shedding  of  his  blood  on  the 
cross?  The  question,  Why  do  Christ's  sufferings 
avail  as  a  substitute  for  man's  punishment  ?  Paul  an- 
swers by  saying,  because  they  are  an  adequate  demon- 
stration of  the  divine  righteousness.  The  further 
inquiry,  What  is  there  in  these  sufferings  which  ren- 
ders them  a  vindication  of  God's  holiness  and  a  satis- 
faction to  his  law  ?  is  much  more  difficult  to  answer 
by  appeal  to  the  apostle's  language.  The  reply,  so 
commonly  given,  that  it  was  because  in  them  Christ 


248  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

was  enduring  the  penalty  of  the  world's  sin,  has  the 
advantage  of  simplicity  and  directness,  but  is  exposed 
to  the  great  difficulties  which  have  been  noticed.  If 
in  his  sufferings  and  death  he  did  not,  in  the  strict 
sense,  assume  man's  guilt  and  penalty,  he  must, 
nevertheless,  in  those  experiences  have  in  some  way 
satisfied  those  demands  of  holiness  which  otherwise 
would  have  found  expression  in  punishment. 

Christ  voluntarily  humbled  himself  by  taking  the 
servant-form  and  identifying  himself  with  man.  In 
so  doing  he  must  come  into  participation  in  the 
sorrows  and  sufferings  which  were  inseparable  from 
man's  sinful  state.  He  would  therefore,  though  per- 
sonally sinless  and  not  liable  to  punishment,  come 
into  the  most  intense  and  vivid  realization  of  human 
guilt.  He  would  inevitably  suffer  its  consequences 
by  virtue  of  his  identification  with  sinful  man.  His 
life  would  be  lived  throughout  under  the  most  pain- 
ful consciousness  of  the  enormity  of  sin  and  of  its 
desert  of  penalty.  His  very  purity  would  make  his 
realization  of  the  guilt  of  sin  the  more  profound,  and 
his  suffering  under  the  sense  of  it  the  more  intense. 
Yet  in  order  to  save  man  he  willingly  bears  this  bit- 
ter fruit  and  consequence  of  human  sinfulness.  He 
suffers  as  he  does  because  he  is  a  pure  being,  living 
under  the  weight  of  the  world's  great  sinfulness,  the 
burdening,  crushing  consciousness  of  its  desert  of 
penalty.  This  suffering,  considered  on  its  physical 
side,  culminates  in  a  violent  death,  —  the  experience 
which  represents  the  utmost  that  human  sinfulness 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  249 

could  inflict,  and  which,  therefore,  becomes  the  symbol 
for  his  sufferings  generally.  These  were  made  neces- 
sary by  human  sin,  and  were  borne  by  Christ  because 
he  had  come  to  man  and  had  entered  into  his  lot. 

How  can  these  sufferings  be  contemplated  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  punishment?  Because,  being  the  conse- 
quence of  sin,  they  were  voluntarily  borne  by  the 
sinless  Christ  as  a  solemn  testimony,  out  of  his  own 
bitter  experience,  to  the  hatefulness  of  sin  and  the 
justice  of  God's  appointment  that  misery  and  suffer- 
ing shall  follow  it  as  its  deserved  penalty.  Christ 
honored  and  vindicated  this  divine  appointment  by 
taking  upon  himself  sufferings  which  belong  in  God's 
order  to  sin,  thus  upholding  the  justice  of  that  divine 
order.  Christ  had  entered  through  the  vicariousness 
of  infinite  love  into  man's  case.  Man  was  under 
the  penal  consequences  of  sin.  Christ  comes  under 
these,  both  by  becoming  the  object  of  sinful  treat- 
ment, and  by  the  intense  realization  in  his  own  spirit 
of  sin's  guilt ;  and  he  attests,  by  the  severity  of  his 
sufferings,  vicariously  borne,  the  righteousness  of 
God's  hostility  to  sin.  He  thus  becomes  a  curse  so 
far  as  to  realize  and  vindicate,  in  his  own  person 
and  experience,  the  absolute  justice  of  the  curse 
upon  sin,  and  to  taste  its  bitterness  so  far  as  in  his 
incarnation  he  is  one  with  man.  He  is  made  sin  for 
us  inasmuch  as  on  our  behalf  he  enters  by  a  sympa- 
thetic identification  of  himself  with  us  into  the  intense 
realization  of  our  sin  and  guilt,  and  therein  fully 
acknowledges  the  justice  of  the  sufferings  which  are 


250  THE  PAULIXE  THEOLOGY 

divinely  appointed  as  sin's  consequence.  He  is  a 
i\a<Trripiov  —  a  means  of  reconciling  God  and  man  — 
not  merely  in  the  sense  of  furnishing  motives  to  man 
to  repent  and  turn  to  God ;  his  work  affects  the  re- 
lation of  man  and  God  on  both  sides.  He  does  not 
indeed  propitiate  God  (no  such  expression  appears  in 
the  New  Testament)  in  the  sense  of  winning  him 
from  an  unwillingness  of  mind  to  save  men,  since  the 
whole  work  of  salvation,  alike  in  its  plan  and  execu- 
tion, originates  in  the  will  of  God  to  save  men.  God 
is  the  object  of  the  reconciling  work  of  Christ  in  so 
far  as  Christ  fulfils  certain  conditions  of  the  divine 
procedure  in  the  remission  of  man's  punishment. 
God  is  rendered  favorable  to  man's  forgiveness  by  the 
work  of  Christ  in  the  sense  that  an  adequate  revela- 
tion of  his  righteousness  against  sin  is  made  in  his 
sufferings,  —  a  revelation  which  in  some  way  must 
find  place  as  the  recoil  of  his  holy  nature  against  sin. 
The  reconciliation  does  not  have  God's  disposition  for 
its  object,  as  if  he  were  thereby  made  willing  to  for- 
give. It  has  him  for  its  object  only  in  his  relation  to 
sin  as  disapproving  it.  If  this  disapproval  is  not  to 
find  expression  in  punishment,  the  obstacle  which 
exists  to  sin's  unconditional  forgiveness  in  that  essen- 
tial hostility  of  God's  nature  to  sin  must  be  removed 
by  the  adoption  of  some  other  expression  of  that  dis- 
approval. In  this  sense  only  does  God  become  recon- 
ciled to  man  in  the  work  of  Christ ;  he  thus  removes 
an  obstacle  to  forgiveness  by  pursuing  another  course 
(equally  valid  to  secure  the  ends  of  justice)  than  that 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  251 

of  punishing,  and  thus  fulfils  the  condition  of  the 
operation  of  his  grace. 

In  further  illustration  of  the  general  view  of  Christ's 
atoning  work  which  is  outlined  above,  the  reader 
may  find  the  following  extracts  and  references  of 
service :  — 

"  From  his  [Christ's]  cross  there  arose  the  most  perfect 
homage  rendered  to  the  righteousness  of  God.  In  this 
death  the  sin  of  mankind  was  therefore  doubly  judged, 
and  the  righteousness  of  God  doubly  manifested,  —  by  the 
external  fact  of  this  painful  and  ignominious  punishment, 
and  by  the  inward  act  of  Christ's  conscience,  which 
ratified  this  dealing  of  which  sin  was  the  object  in  his 
person."  l 

"  From  the  point  of  view  to  which  the  exposition  of  the 
apostle  brings  us,  this  equivalent  [of  the  penalty  of  sin] 
is  not  intended  to  satisfy  divine  justice  except  by  manifest- 
ing it,  and  by  re-establishing  the  normal  relation  between 
God  and  the  guilty  creature.  His  [God's]  holiness  would 
protest  against  every  pardon  which  did  not  fulfil  the 
double  condition  of  glorifying  his  outraged  majesty  and 
of  displaying  the  condemnation  of  sin.  Now  this  double 
end  is  gained  only  by  the  expiatory  sacrifice."  2 

"  The  death  of  Christ  was  a  propitiation  for  the  sins 
of  men  because  it  was  a  revelation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  God,  on  the  ground  of  which  he  can  remit 
the  penalties  of  sin ;  because  it  was  an  act  of  submis- 
sion to  the  justice  of  those  penalties  on  behalf  of  mankind, 
—  an  act  in  which  our  own  submission  was  really  and 

1  Godet,  Commentary  on  Romans,  in  loco,  Hi.  25. 
•  Ib.,  Excursus  on  The  Expiation,  p.  160. 


252  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

virtually  included  ;  and  because  it  secured  the  destruction 
of  sin  in  those  who  through  faith  are  restored  to  union 
with  Christ.  It  is  therefore  the  supreme  and  irresistible 
argument  by  which  we  can  now  sustain  our  appeal  to 
God's  infinite  mercy  to  grant  us  forgiveness  of  sin  and 
deliverance  from  the  wrath  to  come."  l 

Paul's  description  of  the  reconciling  work  of  Christ 
in  terms  of  juridical  or  commercial  analogies  is  that 
which  has  chiefly  shaped  theological  language  and 
thought  respecting  the  atonement.  The  death  of 
Christ  as  a  ransom ;  his  payment  of  our  debt ;  his 
endurance  of  the  penalty  which  threatened  us ;  his 
satisfaction  to  the  demands  of  law,  —  these  have  be- 
come the  current  terms  of  theological  language. 
They  have  sometimes  been  extravagantly  applied,  as 
when  the  ransom-price  was  said  to  have  been  paid 
to  the  Devil  to  purchase  the  release  of  man  from 
his  power,  in  the  patristic  theology ;  or,  as  when 
Christ  was  said  to  have  suffered  the  combined  tor- 

1  Dale,  The  Atonement,  p.  434.  The  student  who  may  de- 
sire further  to  pursue  the  study  of  this  type  of  thought  regard- 
ing the  subject  of  expiation,  will  find  abundant  means  for  so 
doing  in  the  following  literature :  three  articles  by  W.  F.  Gess 
in  the  Jahrbilcher  far  Deutsche  Theologie  for  1857,  1858,  and 
1859,  especially  that  entitled,  Die  Nothwendigkeit  des  Suhnens 
Christi ;  Lyttelton  on  the  Atonement  in  Lux  Mundi ;  Bruce,  The 
Humiliation  of  Christ,  especially  Lecture  vii. ;  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards on  Satisfaction  for  Sin,  Works,  i.  582  sq.  ;  Fisher,  Faith 
and  Rationalism,  Appendix  vi.  ;  and,  with  important  variations 
in  emphasis  and  conception,  Rothe,  Dogmatik ;  Hofmann,  Der 
Schriftbeweis ;  J.  McLeod  Campbell,  The  Nature  of  the  Atone- 
ment ;  Bushnell,  Forgiveness  and  Law. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  253 

tures  of  all  the  lost,  as  by  the  older  Reformed  and 
Lutheran  dogmaticians.1  These  extravagances  are 
illustrations  of  forcing  a  particular  figure  to  do  ser- 
vice as  the  basis  of  a  whole  theory,  rather  than,  as 
it  was  intended,  to  illustrate  some  phase  of  the  great 
theme.  When  the  commercial  or  judicial  analogies 
which  the  apostle  uses  to  express  his  thought  are 
followed  out  into  all  the  inferences  which  they  can 
be  made,  by  a  rigid  application,  to  yield,  the  ex- 
travagant one-sidedness  of  the  result  is  made  clearly 
to  appear.  The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that  these 
expressions  must  not  be  treated  like  scientifically 
precise  formulae,  but  like  human  forms  of  thought, 
—  the  most  useful  forms  which  were  available,  for 
the  illustration  and  enforcement  of  truths  and  rela- 
tions which  are  beyond  the  full  reach  of  definition 
by  any  human  analogies.  Few,  if  any,  of  those  sys- 
tems of  thought  regarding  the  atonement  which,  like 
those  of  Anselm  or  Grotius,  have  been  formed  by  a 
strict  carrying  out  of  some  one  particular  analogy  or 
thought-form,  have  proved  satisfactory  to  Christian 
thinkers  generally,  as  is  shown  by  their  constant 
effort  to  penetrate  beneath  the  figures  of  ransom  and 
forensic  imputation  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  reali- 
ties which  underlie  them. 

There  need  be  small  difference  among  interpreters 
as  to  what  Paul's  language,  in  the  class  of  passages 
just  considered,  says  and  means.  The  chief  differ- 

1  For  example,  Heidegger,  Ilollaz,  and  Quenstedt ;  see  Bruce, 
Humiliation  of  Christ,  p.  439  sq. 


254  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ence  arises  over  the  problem,  What  is  the  just  use  01 
his  expressions  in  theology  ?  Shall  the  inferences 
which  certain  of  his  terms  suggest  be  drawn,  though 
he  has  not  himself  drawn  them  ?  Shall  the  fact  that 
he  designates  Christ  as  a  "  means  of  propitiation,"  be 
said  to  imply  that  his  sufferings  propitiated  God ;  that 
is,  induced  him  to  be  gracious  ?  Shall  the  statement 
that  he  was  "  made  sin  for  us  "  be  declared  clearly  to 
imply  that  he  experienced  under  God's  curse  the 
equivalent  of  the  misery  of  the  lost  ?  Shall  the 
statement  that  he  bought  us  off  by  ransom  from  the 
law's  curse  be  forced  to  give  answer  to  the  question, 
To  whom  was  this  price  paid  ?  If  so,  the  patristic 
answer  must  follow. 

That  the  modes  of  thought  here  referred  to  have  a 
large  place  in  Paul's  writings  no  competent  inter- 
preter will  deny.  What  are  the  limits  of  their  legiti- 
mate use  in  theology  ?  is  another  question.  That  there 
are  limits,  most  Christian  thinkers  will  agree,  as  is 
shown  by  the  general  disfavor  into  which  the  theories 
of  equivalence  and  purchase  have  fallen.  It  may 
serve  to  point  the  way  to  a  more  judicious  view  of  this 
question  to  revert  to  the  more  distinotively  ethical 
mode  of  thought  which  the  apostle  has  himself  ap- 
plied to  this  same  subject,  and  which  may  be  regarded 
as  complementary  of  that  just  reviewed.  In  Rom. 
iv.  25,  Christ  is  said  to  have  been  "  raised  for  our 
justification ; "  that  is,  in  order  to  secure  for  us  the 
divine  declaration  that  we  are  accepted  with  God. 
The  apostle  thus  grounds  the  attainment  of  salvation. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION  255 

not  only  upon  the  death  of  Christ,  but  upon  his  resur- 
rection so  far  as  to  imply  in  this  passage  that  the 
resurrection  was  the  complement  of  his  death.  The 
delivery  up  to  death  for  our  trespasses,  the  atonement 
for  our  sins  which  was  made  in  his  death,  could  not 
effect  the  result  of  our  actual  appropriation  of  salva- 
tion unless  it  had  been  followed  by  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  While,  therefore,  no  strictly  atoning 
significance  is  here  or  elsewhere  ascribed  to  any  event 
except  the  death  of  Christ,  the  resurrection  is  associ- 
ated with  the  completion  of  salvation  in  such  a  way 
as  to  be  made  an  essential  factor.  We  may  see  in 
this  passage  a  connecting  link  between  the  view  of 
Christ's  work  just  considered  and  that  to  which  we 
now  call  attention.  The  representation  that  salva- 
tion is  appropriated  through  an  ethical  dying  and 
rising  to  new  life  with  Christ  is  based  upon  the 
causal  connection  between  those  events  and  the  be- 
liever's spiritual  renewal.  And  thus  we  are  brought 
to  the  subjective  side  of  the  work  of  salvation.  In 
this  view,  salvation  consists  in  fellowship  of  life  with 
Christ,  the  cessation  of  the  old,  sinful  life  and  the  in- 
dwelling of  Christ  in  the  heart.  The  causa  meritoria 
of  salvation  remains  the  death  of  Christ ;  but  the  lan- 
guage—  intensely  ethical  and  even  mystical  as  it  is 
—  in  which  the  apostle  describes  the  participation  of 
believers  in  its  benefits,  shows  how  far  he  is  from 
abiding  constantly  by  the  formal  figure  of  transfer 
and  imputation.  Salvation  is  not  wrought  merely  by 
the  acceptance  of  the  cancellation  of  man's  debt  which 


256  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

another  has  discharged,  but  by  the  actual  entrance 
of  the  soul  into  life-fellowship  with  Christ.  In  the 
practical  application  of  his  doctrine  to  life,  Paul  fre- 
quently departs  from  the  more  formal,  legal  view  of 
the  processes  and  relations  involved,  and  depicts  the 
work  of  salvation  as  eminently  an  ethical  affair. 

Some  have  seen  in  this  twofold  manner  of  present- 
ing the  subject  a  diversity  amounting  almost  to  a 
contradiction.  There  is  no  just  ground  for  such  a 
view.  Both  forms  of  thought  meet  and  blend  in  a 
higher  unity.  If  the  terms  in  which  Christ's  work  is 
represented  as  an  endurance  of  our  deserts  that  we 
might  escape  them,  or  a  payment  of  our  debt  which 
may  be  now  regarded  as  discharged,  are  unduly 
pressed  and  treated  as  if  the  subject  belonged  to  the 
sphere  of  mere  commercial  or  penal  law,  and  not 
rather  to  that  of  ethical  principle,  a  great  difficulty 
may  indeed  be  found  in  reconciling  the  judicial  and 
the  ethical  representations  of  salvation  through  Christ. 
If  Christ's  satisfaction  were  merely  rendered  to  law 
so  that  its  penalty  might  be  withdrawn,  as  the  more 
extreme  governmental  views  would  represent,  then 
the  appropriation  of  the  benefits  of  that  satisfaction 
would  naturally  bear  a  legal  character  also,  and  sal- 
vation would  be  defined  as  an  acceptance  of  the  fact 
that  Christ  had  discharged  our  obligation  for  us.  The 
apostle,  however,  defines  salvation  in  terms  of  life ; 
it  is  a  matter  of  actual  spiritual  relations.  Must  he 
not  also  have  regarded  that  work  of  Christ  in  which  it 
was  grounded  as  belonging  to  this  realm,  as  no  after- 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF   REDEMPTION  257 

thought  or  makeshift  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  gov- 
ernment, but  as  a  revelation  and  vindication  of  laws 
of  life  and  being  which  are  supreme  and  eternal  in 
God  ?  If  Christ  was  the  adequate  revelation  of  God 
in  his  essential  perfections,  his  work  must  have  been 
in  some  way  a  satisfaction  to  God's  ethical  nature,  — 
a  perfect  expression  at  once  of  "  the  goodness  and 
severity  of  God."  In  that  case,  the  appropriation  of 
that  work  is  no  mere  formal  acceptance  or  assent,  but 
is  an  entrance  into  fellowship  with  those  perfections 
of  God  which  Jesus  revealed,  honored,  and  satisfied. 
If  the  work  of  atonement  is  ethically  viewed,  the 
work  of  salvation  may  also  be.  If  the  mind  pene- 
trates to  those  essential,  eternal,  moral  truths  and 
relations  which  underlie  Paul's  treatment  of  Christ's 
death,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  passing  to  those  ethical 
forms  of  thought  in  which  he  often  describes  the 
actual  participation  of  the  believer  in  Christ's  death 
and  resurrection.  If,  however,  the  formal  modes  of 
thought  are  adhered  to  as  containing  the  essence  of 
their  meaning  in  their  very  form,  and  not  in  the 
moral  relations  and  truths  which  they,  by  analogy, 
represent,  a  construction  of  the  doctrine  of  the  atone- 
ment results  which  can  make  small  use  of  the  ter- 
minology that  pictures  salvation  as  a  moral  process, 
if  indeed  it  admits  of  reconciliation  with  such  ter- 
minology at  all. 

The  bearing  of  these  more  mystical  descriptions  of 
salvation  upon  Paul's  theology  can  best  be  considered 
in  full  in  connection  with  the  subject  of  justification, 

17 


258  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

where  they  appear  as  the  counterpart  of  a  more  for- 
mal mode  of  thought,  —  that  of  the  imputation  of 
faith.  It  is  sufficient  in  this  connection  to  point  to 
them  as  illustrations  of  a  method  of  thought  on  the 
apostle's  part  which  shows  that  his  mind  did  not  re- 
main imprisoned  within  the  limits  of  the  legal  analo- 
gies which  he  used  to  illustrate  and  enforce  his  truth, 
but  apprehended  in  a  comprehensive  and  vital  manner 
their  essential  ethical  content  and  value. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  DOCTRINE   OF   JUSTIFICATION 

CLOSELY  related  to  the  doctrine  of  redemption,  which 
deals  with  the  objective  provision  for  man's  rescue 
from  sin,  stands  that  of  justification,  which  treats  of 
his  personal  appropriation  of  salvation.  Although 
this  doctrine  is  the  logical  counterpart  of  the  doctrine 
of  the  cross,  the  apostle  has  not  developed  them  in 
such  close  connection  with  each  other  as  would  doubt- 
less have  been  the  case  had  he  not  approached  the 
subject  of  justification  by  faith  with  the  aim  of  dis- 
proving the  opposite  view  of  justification  by  works. 
His  teaching  concerning  the  attainment  of  salvation 
is  developed  in  his  most  controversial  letters  under 
the  impetus  of  his  polemic  against  the  Pharisaic  idea 
of  merit ;  and  little  attention  is  directly  bestowed  upon 
adjusting  it  to  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  death.  These 
relations,  however,  as  Paul  must  have  conceived  of 
them,  are,  in  the  main,  not  difficult  to  trace,  although 
at  some  points  the  nexus  is  not  easy  to  discover. 

Paul's  doctrine  of  gratuitous  justification  is  no 
doubt  closely  connected  with  his  own  experience  as 
a  Pharisee,  and  with  his  conversion.  He  had  felt 


260  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

and  proved  in  his  own  struggles  after  righteousness 
the  inability  of  all  human  strivings  to  bring  peace 
to  the  conscience.  His  experience  —  so  clearly  re- 
flected in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Romans  —  had  effec- 
tively disproved  for  him  the  opinion  that  salvation 
was  conditioned  upon  man's  merits  and  achievements, 
—  the  view  of  the  subject  commonly  held  by  the  mem- 
bers of  his  sect.1  His  polemic  against  Jewish  and 
Judaizing  theories  of  salvation  had,  therefore,  its 
starting-point  in  the  experience  by  which  he  had  been 
delivered  from  the  bitterness  and  despair  of  his  life  as 
a  Pharisee  into  the  freedom  and  joy  of  the  Christian 
believer.  The  radical  defect  which  Paul  sees  in  the 
Jewish  view  is  that  it  derogates  from  the  divine 
grace  by  making  man  earn  and  deserve  his  acceptance 
with  God.  It  results  from  the  inherent  absurdity  of 
this  view  that  men  are  encouraged  to  attempt  an 
achievement  of  goodness  which,  by  reason  of  their 
sinfulness,  they  are  utterly  powerless  to  accomplish, 
and  whose  fruitless  pursuit  is  sure  to  plunge  them 
into  ever-deepening  despair.  The  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation has  thus  an  immediately  practical  aim ;  and  it 
should  not  seem  strange  if  certain  theological '  aspects 
of  the  doctrine,  and  certain  points  of  connection  with 
related  doctrines,  which  are  of  great  interest  for  a 

1  For  a  full  exposition  of  the  popular  Jewish  view  of  righteous- 
ness and  of  the  conditions  of  its  attainment,  see  Weber,  Die 
Lehren  des  Talmud,  cap.  xix  ,  entitled  Die  Gerechtigkeit  vor  Gott 
und  das  Verdienst,  especially  §§  60,  61.  The  substance  of  this 
chapter  has  been  reproduced  by  me  in  The  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment Student  for  July,  1889. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         261 

systematic  treatment  of  the  subject,  should  not  have 
received  the  apostle's  attention. 

A  succinct  statement  of  Paul's  doctrine  on  this  sub- 
ject would  be  that  sinful  man,  upon  condition  of  exer- 
cising faith  in  the  Redeemer,  who  has  made  a  full 
provision  for  man's  acceptance  with  God,  is  declared  to 
be  righteous  in  God's  sight,  and  is  received  and  treated 
as  such.  It  is  too  well  established  to  require  further 
discussion,  that,  in  Paul's  usage,  the  word  "to  justify" 
(SiKaiow)  denotes  primarily  a  forensic  act,  the  making 
of  a  declaration,  the  pronouncing  of  a  judgment,  rather 
than  a  moral  process  of  making  just  through  an  in- 
fusion of  righteousness.  In  like  manner  Sifcaios  des- 
ignates one  in  whose  favor  this  judgment  has  been  pro- 
nounced, and  SifcaLocrvvr)  the  status  or  relation  of  such 
a  person.  The  terms  are  judicial  in  their  use,  and  the 
process  which  they  describe  is  depicted  in  accordance 
with  legal  analogies.  The  faith  which  is  the  condi- 
tion of  the  justifying  judgment  is  best  understood 
negatively  as  the  contrast  to  works  (epya)  in  the 
popular  Jewish  theology ;  that  is,  deeds  of  meritorious 
legal  observance.  It  is  the  opposite  of  achievement 
or  deserving;  it  is  self-surrender,  humility,  accept- 
ance. More  positively  defined,  it  is,  in  general,  trust 
in  God's  grace ;  in  particular,  personal  trust  in  Christ, 
in  whom  that  grace  is  chiefly  revealed  and  assured  to 
sinful  man.  "  Faith  "  and  "  grace  "  are  thus  correlative 
terms  and  are  the  pivots  of  Paul's  whole  teaching. 
Grace  is  the  principle  in  God  which  initiates  and  com- 
pletes the  work  of  salvation ;  and  faith  is  the  act  in 


262  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

which  man  appropriates  it.  The  corresponding  terms 
in  the  scheme  of  thought  which  Paul  opposes  are 
"  debt "  and  "  works."  If  salvation  could  be  attained 
by  works,  it  would  not  be  a  gift  of  grace  on  God's  part, 
but,  being  deserved  by  man,  might  be  demanded  as  his 
right,  and  so  be  matter  of  debt  to  him  (Rom.  iv.  4). 

Besides  the  word  "  to  justify  "  we  have,  as  an  equiva- 
lent expression,  the  phrase  to  "reckon  [\oyi£eo-0at,~\ 
righteousness"  to  one,  or  to  "reckon  his  faith  for 
righteousness."  There  are  two  cases  of  the  occur- 
rence of  the  former  phrase  (Rom.  iv.  6,  11),  and 
seven  where  the  latter  is  found  (Rom.  iv.  3,  5,  9,  22, 
23,  24;  Gal.  iii.  6).  It  will  be  seen  from  the  preva- 
lence of  the  latter  expression  that  Paul's  character- 
istic thought  is  that  of  the  imputation  of  faith ;  and 
when  the  two  passages  in  which  righteousness  is  said 
to  be  imputed  are  compared,  they  are  found  to  present 
but  another  expression  for  the  same  idea.  In  the  first 
instance  (Rom.  iv.  6)  the  apostle,  in  allusion  to  Psalm 
xxxii.  1,  2,  speaks  of  the  blessedness  of  gracious  for- 
giveness as  experienced  by  the  man  "  unto  whom  God 
reckoneth  righteousness  apart  from  works,"  —  an  ex- 
pression which,  as  the  quotation  which  follows  it  shows, 
is  equivalent  to  the  non-reckoning  or  forgiveness  of 
sin.  In  the  other  (iv.  11)  righteousness  is  spoken  of 
as  being  reckoned  to  believers  in  the  same  way  as  to 
Abraham,  the  type  of  all  believers.  But  the  reckon- 
ing of  righteousness  to  Abraham  is  identical  with  the 
imputation  of  his  faith  for  righteousness,  —  a  form  of 
expression  which  occurs  six  times  in  this  same  chapter. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         263 

It  is  obvious,  then,  that  the  theological  formula,  "  the 
imputation  of  Christ's  righteousness,"  can  have  no 
basis  in  these  expressions.  If  this  were  not  ctear 
from  the  evident  equivalence  of  the  phrases,  reckon- 
ing righteousness  and  reckoning  faith,  it  would  be 
made  so  by  the  fact  that  both  instances  of  reckoning 
righteousness  referred  to  are  drawn  from  the  Old 
Testament  sphere,  where  the  reckoning  of  Christ's 
merit,  in  the  sense  of  Christian  theology,  could  not 
come  within  the  circle  of  the  thought  which  he  is  de- 
veloping.1 It  will  be  a  subsequent  inquiry  whether 
this  formula  has  a  real  ground  in  the  implications 
of  the  Pauline  system. 

The  word  "  righteousness  "  in  connection  with  Paul's 
doctrine  of  justification  has  a  technical  meaning  which 
it  is  not  easy  concisely  to  define.  It  is  Si/caiocrvvr) 
6eov  (Rom.iii.  21), — a  righteousness  which  comes  from 
God,  as  opposed  to  the  idea  of  its  originating  in  hu- 
man attainment.  Hence  it  is  described  as  the  right- 
eousness which  is  from  God  on  condition  of  faith 
(77  ex  0eov  StKaioa-vvr)  eVt  rfj  Tr/o-ret),  in  contrast 

* 

1  On  this  point,  considered  as  a  question  of  exegesis,  the  opin- 
ions of  critics  are  well  agreed,  and  the  conclusion  is  incontrovert- 
ible that  theological  symbols  like  the  Formula  Concordice  and  the 
Westminster  Confession  (ch.  xi.),  in  denying  the  imputation  of 
faith  and  asserting  the  imputation  of  Christ's  merit,  have  pro- 
ceeded, as  Meyer  affirms,  ultra  quod  scriptum  est.  Cf.  Meyer  on 
Rom.  iv.  5,  note.  Weiss  says,  "  The  idea  that  God  reckons  the 
righteousness  of  Christ  unto  man  is  not  Pauline ;  it  is  not  con- 
tained even  in  Rom.  v.  19."  Bib.  TheoL  §  82  b,  note  3 ;  Eng. 
tr.  i.  p.  440,  note  2. 


264        THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

with  one's  own  righteousness,  which  is  of  the  law 
(e/x^  Sitcaioo-vvi)  fj  etc  vopov,  Phil.  iii.  9).  The  Jews 
are  said  to  have  been  ignorant  of  God's  righteous- 
ness (f)  rov  deov  Sitcaioo-vwr)^,  and  to  have  sought 
to  establish  their  own  righteousness  (f)  ISta  Bi/cat- 
oo-vvr),  Rom.  x.  3).  Righteousness,  then,  in  these 
connections,  does  not  mean  moral  perfection,  but  a 
state  of  gracious  acceptance  into  which  the  believer, 
upon  condition  of  his  faith,  is  admitted.  It  is  an 
acquittal  which  proceeds  from  God,  whereby  the 
believer  is  declared  forgiven  and  accepted  before  him. 
The  righteousness  which  is  of  the  law  would  need  to 
be  moral  perfection  in  the  nature  of  the  case.  If 
one  will  have  righteousness  by  his  own  acts,  he  must 
fulfil  all  the  obligations  which  its  perfect  attainment 
involves.  Should  one  completely  meet  these  require- 
ments he  would  be  a  Si/caios,  not  by  grace,  but  by 
debt.  Should  one  by  obedience  attain  perfection,  he 
would  be  entitled  to  the  recognition  of  that  attain- 
ment in  the  judgment  of  justification  (Gal.  iii.  12 ; 
Rom.  ii.  13).  But  this  righteousness  —  perfect  obe- 
dience to  the  law's  demands  —  man  is  powerless  to 
achieve.  There  remains  open  to  him,  however,  a 
righteousness  which  consists  in  a  state  of  pardon 
and  acceptance  before  God,  which,  though  unmerited, 
is  accorded  him  on  the  ground  of  the  gracious  work 
of  Christ  in  his  behalf.  This  righteousness,  so  far 
from  being  attained  by  merit,  or  produced  within  him- 
self, is  conferred  upon  him,  though  he  does  not  in 
himself  possess  it.  It  is  now  his  own  in  so  far  as  the 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION        265 

imputation  makes  it  his  privilege  and  right,  but  is  not 
his  own  either  in  respect  to  its  origin  or  as  inhering 
in  his  character.  It  will  be  seen  how  objectively 
Paul  treats  of  righteousness  in  the  formal  develop- 
ment of  his  doctrine  of  justification.  It  is  repre- 
sented as  a  status  rather  than  a  character ;  it  bears 
the  stamp  of  a  legal  rather  than  of  an  ethical 
conception.1 

The  motive  of  the  apostle  in  developing  this  idea  in 
so  purely  objective  a  manner  is  easy  to  discover.  It 
was  to  guard  his  teaching  with  the  utmost  care 
against  the  Jewish  idea  of  righteousness  by  man's 
own  merit.  His  view  of  righteousness  is  a  corollary 
of  his  fundamental  doctrine  of  grace.  Righteousness 
is  something  which  is  accorded  to  man,  though  he 
does  not  possess  or  deserve  it ;  that  is,  it  is  a  gift  of 
grace.  Justification  is  a  treatment  of  man  which  is 
better  than  he  deserves.  God  reckons  to  him  some- 
thing which  he  does  not  have.  The  same  motive 
which  impelled  the  apostle  to  magnify  God's  grace  in 
salvation  as  against  all  human  deserving,  has  com- 
monly secured  in  theology  a  very  close  adherence  to 
the  forensic  side  of  Paul's  teaching  upon  this  subject, 
and  has  even  carried  theological  definition  in  this 
direction  so  far  beyond  the  apostle's  statements  as 
almost  to  make  justification  a  mere  fiat,  and  not  an 

1  I  can  refer  the  reader  to  no  more  elaborate  and  convincing 
proof  of  the  forensic  character  of  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification 
than  is  found  in  Morison's  Exposition  of  Romans  Third,  pp. 
163-200. 


266  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ethical  affair  at  all,  and  actually  to  deny  the  imputa- 
tion of  faith  and  affirm  instead  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  righteousness,  lest,  by  allowing  that  faith  was 
imputed,  the  view  should  seem  to  be  favored  that 
faith  was  itself  a  "  work,"  and  thus  salvation,  after  all, 
an  attainment  of  man.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind, 
however,  that  in  expounding  his  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion, Paul  was  waging  an  intense  polemic  (the  great 
conflict  of  h/3  life)  against  the  Jews'  idea  of  man's 
deserving  salvation, — an  idea  which  naturally  sprang 
out  of  their  conception  of  their  peculiar  claims  and 
prerogatives  as  the  supposed  favorites  of  heaven. 
That  he  should,  in  refuting  this  error,  magnify  every 
point  which  illustrates  the  gracious  view  of  salvation 
would  be  most  natural.  That  in  his  polemic  he 
should  go  so  far  as  to  seem  to  separate  the  work  of 
man's  salvation  from  all  ethical  processes  within  him- 
self, and  to  make  it  a  matter  of  the  divine  judgment 
and  efficiency  alone,  need  not  be  thought  strange.  If 
there  is,  in  one  set  of  representations,  a  certain  one- 
sidedness  in  Paul's  legal  conception  of  righteousness 
and  in  his  forensic  view  of  justification,  it  should 
neither  be  hastily  inferred,  on  the  one  hand,  that 
these  conceptions  should  be  read  out  of  his  epistles 
by  exegetical  artifices,  or  rejected  as  valueless,  nor, 
on  the  other  hand,  that  they  set  the  limits  to  all 
Paul's  thought  on  the  subject,  much  less  to  Chris- 
tian thought  in  general,  and  give  an  inflexible  law  to 
theological  reflection  and  definition  regarding  the 
dealings  of  God  with  man  in  salvation.  It  is  at 


THE  DOCTRINE  OP  JUSTIFICATION        267 

least  a  justifiable  observation  that  theology  need  not 
push  Paul's  juridical  conception  beyond  the  point  to 
which  he  has  himself  carried  it,  since  it  is  reasonable 
to  think  that  the  apostle  employed  these  forensic 
representations  as  far  as  they  were  serviceable  to 
the  truth  which  he  was  maintaining.  In  another 
instance,  where  the  apostle  was  waging  war  upon 
certain  unfounded  Jewish  assumptions,  we  saw 
(chap,  v.)  that  the  purposely  one-sided  argumentum 
ad  hominem  with  which  he  opposes  and  humbles 
their  pretensions  (Rom.  ix.)  is  afterward  so  sup- 
plemented (chaps,  x.,  xi.,  esp.  x.  21 ;  xi.  20,  22,  23) 
as  to  assign  to  men  in  the  dispensations  of  God 
their  own  measure  of  responsibility,  to  relieve  the 
divine  action  of  the  arbitrariness  which  appeared 
to  be  asserted  of  it,  and  to  answer  the  very  natural 
query  (ix.  19)  which,  in  the  course  of  the  polemic 
where  it  is  stated,  is  treated  as  presumptuous.  May 
it  not  be  that  the  court  analogies  to  which  by  his 
Jewish  education  Paul's  mind  was  accustomed,  and 
which  served  so  well  his  doctrine  of  a  gracious,  as 
opposed  to  a  deserved,  justification,  do  not  represent 
all  of  Paul's  thought  upon  the  subject,  and  do  not 
give  us  the  only  light  in  which  we  may  view  it  ?  It 
seems  desirable  to  take  a  more  comprehensive  view 
than  a  mere  exegesis  of  individual  passages  can 
yield,  and  to  inquire  into  the  idea  of  justification  in 
the  light  of  Paul's  whole  system  of  ideas.  This  in 
quiry  is  perhaps  most  naturally  started  by  the  ques 
tion,  Why,  according  to  Paul,  is  faith  reckoned  for 


268 

righteousness  ?  or,  What  is  the  real  relation  between 
the  two  which  entitles  the  one  to  be  taken  for  the 
other  ? 

In  answering  this  question,  theological  thought  has 
taken  two  different  directions.  One  reply  is,  that 
the  connection  between  faith  and  righteousness  is 
solely  a  matter  of  divine  arrangement.  Faith  is 
neither  righteousness  nor  the  germ  of  righteousness. 
God  has  declared  himself  pleased  to  accept  it  and  to 
reckon  righteousness  to  man  on  condition  of  the  exer- 
cise of  faith,  although  there  is  no  inherent,  vital  con- 
nection between  the  two.  As  our  sins  were  imputed 
to  Christ  by  a  sovereign  act  of  God,  so  that  he  bore 
their  penalty,  so  his  righteousness  is  imputed  to  us,  if 
we  fulfil  the  condition  which  God  requires.  Faith, 
then,  is  simply  a  resting  upon  the  substitutionary  work 
of  Christ  on  our  behalf,  and  cannot  be  reckoned  for 
righteousness  because  there  is  any  identity  of  princi- 
ple or  causal  connection  between  the  two,  but  only  be- 
cause God  is  graciously  pleased  to  impute  Christ's 
merit  to  him  who  in  faith  rests  his  hope  wholly  upon 
it.  Is  the  man  now  who  is  thus  accounted  "  right- 
eous "  really  so  ?  He  is  not.  He  is  covered  or 
clothed  with  Christ's  merit,  which  now  avails  for  him, 
but  personally  he  is  no  more  righteous  than  before. 
The  decree  of  justification  pronounces  him  righteous 
only  in  the  sense  that  he  is  treated  as  if  he  possessed 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  He  is  imputatively,  not 
ethically,  righteous. 

The  other  answer  to  the  question  proceeds  from  the 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION        269 

effort  to  establish  a  real,  inner  connection  between 
faith  and  righteousness.  It  is  held  that  faith  is 
reckoned  for  righteousness  because  it  is  the  principle 
or  beginning  of  righteousness ;  it  is  that  attitude  or 
temper  of  mind  toward  God  and  his  gracious  salva- 
tion which,  renouncing  self-sufficiency,  humbly  re- 
ceives from  him  what  he  offers  to  the  soul.  Faith  is 
surrender,  trust,  receptiveness.  It  is  not  merely  a 
condition  of  being  pronounced  righteous ;  it  is  the 
actual  entrance  upon  the  righteous  life,  because  it  is 
the  beginning  of  glad  and  loyal  obedience.  Salvation 
is  by  faith,  because  faith  is  the  act  of  acceptance  by 
the  soul,  of  Christ  as  its  master,  and  of  his  spirit  as  its 
law.  What  is  accepted  is  the  grace  and  forgiveness 
offered  in  the  atonement.  It  is  the  acceptance  of 
Christ's  righteousness,  not  through  imputation,  but  by 
actual  participation  in  it  through  vital  union  with 
him.  Christ's  righteousness  —  that  is,  his  life  and 
spirit  —  is  appropriated  in  faith ;  and  the  man  whom 
God,  in  the  sentence  of  justification,  pronounces 
righteous  is  really  so,  not  indeed,  in  the  sense  of  being 
morally  perfect,  but  in  the  sense  of  having  begun  the 
life  of  real  righteousness,  —  the  life  which  is  well- 
pleasing  to  God.1 

1  Cf.  Pfleiderer's  statement  of  the  two  contrasted  views,  Ur- 
christenthum,  pp.  249,  250.  The  characteristic  idea  of  one  is  a 
"Zurechnung  des  Verdienstes  oder  der  fremden  Gerechtigkeit 
Christ!  an  den  Siinder ; "  the  other  regards  faith  as  "  sittlich  gute 
Gesinnung  oder  Tugend."  His  criticism  of  both  these  opinions 
and  his  discussion  of  the  elements  of  truth  in  each  well  deserve 
careful  reading. 


270  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

It  will  be  seen  that  these  two  solutions  of  the  prob- 
lem start  out  from  widely  different  presuppositions. 
The  former  view  proceeds  in  rigid  adherence  to  the 
judicial  conceptions  of  Paul's  argument.  The  rela- 
tion between  God's  action  in  the  treatment  of  men 
and  the  legal  processes  of  a  court,  which  is  implied  in 
such  words  as  "  justify "  and  "  impute,"  is  strictly 
carried  out,  and  upon  it  is  built  a  philosophy  of  the 
whole  subject.  The  forensic  conception  is  not  treated 
as  embodying  an  analogy  and  thus  as  furnishing  an 
illustration,  drawn  from  human  relations,  of  higher 
spiritual  realities,  but  is  treated  as  if  it  were  a  scien- 
tific definition.  The  thought-form  is  identified  with 
the  absolute  truth,  and  must  therefore  be  preserved 
consistently  throughout  in  constructing  a  doctrine  of 
salvation. 

The  second  method  of  treatment  proceeds  upon  the 
assumption  that  the  juridical  mode  of  depicting  God's 
relation  to  men  is  but  one  form  of  conceiving  of  that 
relation,  —  a  form  which  is  indeed  prevalent  with 
Paul,  —  and  that  it  is  the  province  of  theology  to  seek 
and  define  the  essential  ethical  content  of  truth  which 
these  forms  embody ;  to  translate  these  legal  terms 
as  fully  as  possible  into  their  moral  equivalents. 
Sometimes  the  effort  is  made  to  show  that  Paul'? 
terms  are  not  so  wholly  forensic  as  has  been  com- 
monly claimed,  and  to  construct  by  exegesis  a  more 
purely  ethical  view  of  justification.1  We  have  already 

1  See,  for  example,  Lyman  Abbott's  Commentary  on  Romans, 
passim;  Sabatier,  L'Apotre  Paul,  p.  273  sq.  ;  Eng.  tr.  297  sq.  The 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         271 

shown  (chap,  ii.)  that  this  effort  involves  exegetical 
violence,  and  cannot  succeed.  The  formal  structure 
of  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  justification  stands  out  in 
clear,  bold  relief.  The  best  exegetes  are  well  agreed 
as  to  the  meaning  of  its  terms ;  there  is  small  reason 
why  they  need  disagree,  so  clear  and  strong  are  the 
marks  with  which  the  apostle  has  struck  out  the  out- 
lines of  his  doctrine.  The  problem  is  to  be  remanded 
to  another  court  than  that  of  mere  exegesis,  and  can- 
not be  settled  by  appeal  to  one  class  of  passages  alone, 
in  which  a  certain  legal  mode  of  thought  obviously 
predominates,  as  is  the  case  with  those  which  deal 
directly  with  the  doctrine  of  justification.  The  ques- 
tion is  whether  it  is  permissible  to  seek  to  define  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  counterpart  of  this  formal  doc- 
trine ;  whether  it  accords  with  Paul's  thought  as  a 
whole  to  suppose  that  his  legal  terms  were  to  him 
really  the  symbols  of  living  spiritual  realities  and 
processes ;  nay,  whether  Paul,  in  connections  where 
he  is  not  building  a  dogma  of  justification,  but  speak- 
most  exhaustive  exegetical  argument  for  the  ethical  view  of  justifi- 
cation with  which  I  am  familiar  is  that  of  Lipsius  (Die  panlinische 
Rechtfertigungslehre  u.  s.  w.  Leipzig,  1853),  who  maintains  the 
view  that  8iKato(rvvrj  designates  not  "  ausschliesslich  ein  objectiv 
gegebenes  ausserliches  Verhaltniss  zu  Gott,  sondern  stets  zugleich 
einen  wirklichen  innern  Zustand  der  Rechtbeschaffenheit,"  p.  10. 
It  is  understood,  however,  that  the  author  has  so  far  retracted  this 
and  kindred  positions  as  to  disclaim  that  they  can  be  established 
by  exegesis.  The  fact  that  his  able  argument,  which  has  convinced 
so  many  others,  does  not  now  convince  the  author  himself,  may  be 
taken  as  an  indication  that  the  theory  which  it  advocates  cannot, 
as  a  matter  of  exegesis,  be  successfully  defended. 


272       THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ing  practically  of  the  Christian  life,  does  not  so  ex- 
press himself  regarding  the  union  of  the  believer  with 
Christ,  and  the  required  and  actual  character  of  the 
true  Christian  man,  as  to  make  it  necessary  in  at- 
tempting to  reproduce  the  whole  Pauline  thought 
regarding  salvation  to  supplement  his  formal  doc- 
trine by  other  elements  derived  from  his  own  letters, — 
in  other  words,  to  find  in  his  teaching  concerning  the 
Christian  life  the  matter  which  corresponds  to  the 
form  that  we  have  been  considering.  I  unhesitat- 
ingly adopt  the  view  that  this  is  not  only  allowable, 
but  necessary  to  a  right  systematic  treatment  of  the 
thoughts  of  Paul  concerning  salvation. 

Let  us  turn  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  The 
doctrine  of  justification  is  developed  in  chapter  iv. 
In  chapter  v.  the  apostle  dwells  on  the  blessed  conse- 
quences of  the  justified  state,  —  peace,  joy,  and  the 
assurance  of  yet  greater  blessings  from  divine  grace, 
since  it  is  more  mighty  and  prevailing  than  the  power 
of  sin.  In  chapter  vi.  he  enters  upon  a  description 
of  the  requirements  of  the  Christian  life.  He  speaks 
of  conversion  as  a  dying  to  sin  (vi.  2)  ;  he  affirms 
that  the  rite  by  which  the  beginning  of  their  spir- 
itual life  was  symbolized  signifies  the  cessation  of  the 
old  sinful  life  and  the  commencement  of  a  process  of 
spiritual  renewal  (verses  3,  4).  The  "  old  man,"  the 
former  sinful  self,  died  with  Christ ;  that  is,  the  unrc- 
generate  nature  became  inoperative,  ceased  to  be  the 
determining  power  of  the  life  in  the  converted  man. 
The  very  same  spiritual  process  which,  in  the  formal 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         273 

development  of  the  doctrine,  is  treated  as  a  judgment 
or  decree  of  God  is  now  described  as  an  ethical  and 
spiritual  transformation  figuratively  called  a  "  death," 
in  order  at  once  to  emphasize  the  completeness  of  the 
change  and  causally  to  connect  it  with  Christ's  sacri- 
fice (cf.  chap.  ii.).  So  completely  identical  are  the 
juridical  justification  and  the  ethical  death  that  the 
apostle  can  mingle  in  the  same  sentence  the  terms 
which  are  descriptive  of  each,  and  say :  "  He  that 
hath  died  is  justified  from  sin"  (verse  7).  Through- 
out the  remainder  of  the  chapter  (verses  8-23)  he 
enforces  the  strenuous  demand  for  holiness  which  is 
involved  in  the  very  idea  of  the  Christian  life,  by  com- 
paring the  complete  separation  from  sin  which  Christ 
experienced  at  his  death,  with  the  breaking  away  from 
the  sinful  life  which  should  take  place  in  the  case  of 
the  one  who  dies  to  sin  with  him  (verses  10, 11)  ;  also 
by  showing  that  the  life  of  sin  involves  a  terrible 
bondage  of  soul  (verses  12-20),  and  by  pointing  out 
the  fruitlessness  and  misery  of  this  life  in  the  end 
(verses  21-23). 

If  one  traces  the  main  current  of  the  apostle's 
thought  through  the  next  two  chapters  (vii.,  viii.),  it 
will  be  found  that  he  further  develops  the  same  in- 
tensely ethical  conception  of  the  Christian  life  both  in 
its  beginning,  its  nature,  and  its  demands.  In  vii.  1-6 
he  draws  the  lesson  that  the  Christian  life  is  a  service 
"  in  newness  of  the  spirit,  and  not  in  oldness  of  the 
letter"  (verse  6) ;  and  to  enforce  this  truth, he  proceeds 
to  describe  (verses  7-25)  the  bondage  and  despair  to 

18 


274  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

which  the  service  "  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter  "  actu- 
ally leads,  —  a  description  which  is  intensified  by  his 
own  experience.  He  then  turns  again  in  chapter  viii. 
to  the  spiritual  as  contrasted  with  the  legal  life,  and 
develops  the  great  thoughts  toward  which  all  his 
previous  arguments  and  illustrations  have  been  tend- 
ing. This  chapter  is  the  summit  of  the  apostle's 
thought,  and  should  be  regarded  as  the  very  heart 
of  the  epistle.  The  dogmatic  treatment  of  the  letter, 
disregarding  alike  its  systematic  and  progressive 
character  and  the  inner  connections  of  its  thoughts, 
has  commonly  laid  the  main  emphasis  upon  the  fourth 
chapter,  or  perhaps  with  equal  frequency  upon  the 
parallel  between  Adam  and  Christ,  or,  more  unjusti- 
fiably still,  upon  one  member  of  that  comparison,  the 
Adam-side  of  the  parallel.  This  procedure  is  quite 
as  unwarranted  in  the  light  of  a  genetic  study  of 
Paul's  thoughts  as  is  the  effort  of  exegesis  to  find  the 
ideas  of  chapter  viii.  already  present  and  expressed  in 
chapter  iv. 

Remembering  that  the  last  half  of  chapter  v.  (verses 
12-21)  and  all  of  chapter  vii.  are  illustrative  in  char- 
acter, we  may  look  upon  chapters  v.  1-11,  vi.,  and  viii. 
as  a  connected  development  of  the  same  truth,  —  that 
the  saved  or  justified  state  involves  in  its  very  idea 
a  moral  renewal,  a  spiritual  life.  The  condition  of 
entering  this  life  may  be  called  faith,  or  it  may  be 
called  a  moral  death  to  sin.  If  these  terms  are  so 
nearly  identical  that  they  involve  one  another,  as  their 
interchange  shows  them  to  be,  it  cannot  be  that  Paul 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         275 

regards  faith  as  a  mere  formal,  non-moral  requirement, 
an  arbitrary  condition  of  the  issue  of  a  decree.  If  after 
developing,  in  opposition  to  the  Pharisaic  principle  of 
"  works,"  the  doctrine  of  a  gracious  justification  apart 
from  merit,  and  on  condition  of  humble  acceptance 
and  trust,  he  proceeds  to  expound  to  believers  what  is 
involved  in  this  life  of  faith  and  what  is  its  whole 
idea,  nature,  and  demand,  it  will  certainly  not  be 
unnatural  to  take  this  exposition  as  expressing  his 
ripest  and  most  essential  thoughts  on  the  subject. 
His  polemic  against  a  false  view  in  chapter  iv.,  where 
he  wards  off  the  theory  of  merit  by  showing  that  God 
treats  man,  not  as  he  deserves,  but  better  than  he 
deserves,  must  be  supplemented  by  that  exposition  of 
the  subject  which  is  addressed  distinctively  to  be- 
lievers, and  which  is  wholly  positive  and  constructive, 
rather  than  defensive,  in  its  purpose  and  spirit.  In 
chapter  iv.  he  develops  the  formal  principle  of  salva- 
tion, which  is  justification  by  faith,  treated  in  a 
forensic  manner  in  accord  with  prevailing  Jewish 
conceptions ;  in  chapters  v.,  vi.,  and  viii.  he  unfolds 
the  real  principle  of  salvation,  which  is  moral  renewal 
through  union  with  Christ.  The  first  argument  is 
designed  to  parry  a  false  theory,  and  meets  that  the- 
ory on  its  own  juristic  plane  of  thought ;  the  second 
exposition  is  adapted  to  the  edification  and  instruc- 
tion of  believers,  and  mounting  up  into  the  spiritual 
realm,  deals  with  the  moral  and  religious  truths, 
processes,  and  forces  which  are  involved  in  justifi- 
cation. Strange  that  theology  should  so  often  have 


276  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

insisted  upon  constructing  its  doctrine  upon  the  for- 
mal principle  alone.  By  so  doing,  the  process  of  sal- 
vation is  left  without  definite  content ;  and  in  order  to 
give  it  such,  the  theory  is  driven  to  introduce  posi- 
tively un-Pauline  elements,  such  as  the  imputation  of 
Christ's  merit.  Let  the  view  of  the  genetic  connec- 
tion of  Paul's  thoughts  outlined  above  be  tested  by 
fuller  reference  to  the  eighth  chapter. 

In  the  opening  words  we  meet  the  conception  of 
the  justified  state  which  involves  Paul's  deepest  phi- 
losophy of  salvation :  "  There  is  therefore  now  no  con- 
demnation to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  Here 
again  are  found  both  elements  or  types  of  thought  in 
closest  union.  The  St/eato?  is  free  from  condemna- 
tion ;  no  accusation  can  now  be  made  against  him,  and 
why  ?  It  would  be  Pauline  to  answer :  Because  upon 
condition  of  his  relying  for  pardon  upon  the  sacri- 
ficial work  of  Christ  on  his  behalf,  God  has  pro- 
nounced him  acquitted  before  the  law.  But  it  is 
also  Pauline  to  answer  that  he  is  secure  from  condem- 
nation because  he  is  "  in  Christ  Jesus,"  one  with  him 
in  life  and  character  through  the  indwelling  of  Christ 
in  his  spirit  (Gal.  ii.  20),  through  the  hiding  of  his 
life  with  Christ  in  God  (Col.  iii.  3).  Such  is  the 
apostle's  reasoning  in  this  connection,  as  is  seen  in  his 
explanation  of  the  phrase,  "  in  Christ  Jesus."  "  For," 
he  says, "  the  law  of  the  Spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus  " 
—  the  power  or  principle  which  is  implanted  in  the 
soul  by  the  life-giving  Holy  Spirit,  who  works  in 
and  through  our  fellowship  with  Christ  —  "  made  me 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION        277 

free  from  the  law  of  sin  and  death."  Deliverance 
from  sin,  freedom  from  condemnation,  is  accom- 
plished by  a  spiritual  life-process  which  fulfils  the 
requirement  of  the  law  in  us  (which  the  law  itself 
could  not  effect  by  reason  of  the  resistance  to  it  of 
indwelling  sin)  by  enabling  us  to  "  walk  not  after  the 
flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit"  (verses  3,  4).  It  must  not 
be  overlooked  that  the  apostle  here  asserts  a  fulfil- 
ment of  the  law's  requirement  (verse  4)  in  the  case 
of  those  who  are  in  life-fellowship  with  Christ.  This 
requirement  or  rightful  demand  of  the  law  (Sifcaiwfia 
rov  v6fj,ov)  means  the  ethical  character,  both  as  respects 
outward  action  and  inner  morality,  which  is  accordant 
with  the  law.  Christ's  work  makes  possible  this  re- 
sult which  is  actually  effected  in  the  believer  through 
life-union  with  Christ.1  The  old  interpretation  which 
understood  this  SiKaiwfia  to  denote  the  law's  demand 
for  punishment  which  Christ  by  his  sufferings  satis- 
fied, and  which  is  therefore  fulfilled  in  the  believer 
by  imputation  to  him  of  this  satisfaction,  is  contrary 
to  the  context,  which  treats  explicitly  of  the  life  which 
corresponds  to  the  law's  requirements. 

It  is  obvious,  then,  that  according  to  Paul,  the  just 
demand  of  the  law  is  fulfilled  in  him  who  believes  ;  and 
yet  it  is  equally  plain  that  faith  is  not  regarded  as  a 
virtue  or  as  in  any  way  the  source  of  this  moral 
process.  In  view  of  this  fact,  only  two  positions  are 
logically  possible :  (1)  That  the  fulfilment  of  this  moral 
requirement  is  in  no  way  connected  with  faith,  except 
1  So,  substantially,  Meyer,  Godet,  Weiss. 


278  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

so  far  as  faith  is  a  condition  of  its  taking  place.  This 
I  understand  to  be  Weiss's  opinion.  Faith  has  no 
moral  quality ;  it  is  even  "  the  antithesis  of  all  ful- 
filling of  the  law,"  and  "  excludes  every  disposition 
demanded  by  the  law."  l  In  this  view,  faith  is  not 
the  act  whereby  man  enters  into  life-fellowship  with 
Christ,  but  only  the  presupposition  of  this  union,  —  an 
attitude  of  man  toward  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ.2 
Faith  and  justification  are  acts  which  precede  the 
life-union  with  Christ ;  and  only  after  they  have  taken 
place  does  the  communication  of  a  new  principle  of 
life,  which  is  a  second  and  separate  act,  occur.  (2)  In 
the  other  view,  faith  is  an  appropriation  of  Christ,  —  a 
bond  which  unites  the  believer  to  him.  The  act 
denoted  by  faith  is  the  entrance  upon  a  new  personal 
relation.  Faith  is  as  little  a  mere  "  attitude,"  with 
no  significance  for  the  inner  life  (as  Weiss  makes  it), 
as  it  is  a  "  mere  opinion  "  (as  Baur  had  made  it).  It 
is  man's  part  in  the  constitution  of  a  new  and  vital 
personal  relation  of  the  soul  to  Christ.  It  is  indeed  a 
religious  act  rather  than  a  moral  achievement,  but  it 
is  an  act  which  is  in  closest  connection  with  the 
actual  increasing  attainment  of  the  divine  require- 
ments, because  it  is  the  act  of  entering  into  mystical 
union  with  Christ.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  first 
question  is,  whether  the  actual  righteousness  which 
all  recognize  as  the  demand  of  the  Christian  life  is  in 
any  way  directly  connected  with  faith,3  —  in  other 

1  Bib.  Theol  §  82  c.  a  Ibid.  §  84  b. 

*  See  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol.  §  87  a,  note  2. 


words,  whether  faith  is  a  mere  naked  act  of  trust,  in 
itself  wholly  separate  from  the  moral  disposition,  or 
whether  it  is  an  act  of  entrance  into  mystic  fellow- 
ship with  Christ.1 

In  seeking  to  determine  which  of  these  ideas  is  to 
be  adopted,  reference  must  be  made  to  such  passages 
as  Gal.  ii.  17  and  2  Cor.  v.  21  (SiKcuwOrjvai  ev  Xpta-rm' 
iva  rjfj,€i<i  yevwfieOa  Sticaioorvvr)  deov  ev  avra>).  Of.  Phil, 
iii.  9.  In  one  view  we  have  here  a  commingling  of  the 
forensic  terms  (SitcaKoOijvai,  St/caioevvrj)  with  the  mys- 
tical (ei>  Xpia-TM,  ev  avToS).  This,  however,  is  more 
doubtful,  since  in  both  cases  the  subject  of  redemp- 
tion on  its  objective  side  is  directly  under  considera- 
tion, and  the  preposition  ev  may  denote  the  ground  of 
justification.2  But  we  think  that  no  just  exegesis  can 
deny  that  these  passages  adumbrate  the  mystical 
union  of  the  believer  with  Christ  which  is  found 
clearly  expressed  in  Phil.  iii.  9  in  the  phrase  "  that  I 
may  be  found  in  him  "  (iva  evpeOw  ev  ayreS),  which,  in 
turn,  is  explained  and  defined  as  meaning,  "not  having 
a  righteousness  of  mine  own,  even  that  which  is  of 
the  law,  but  that  which  is  through  faith  in  Christ,  the 
righteousness  which  is  of  God  by  faith  "  (77  ex  deov 
Si/caioavvr)).  That  to  be  ev  avro)  is  practically  equiv- 
alent to  eyjav  rrjv  e/c  deov  Sitcaioa-vvrjv  is  evident,  espe- 

1  So,  substantially,  Pfleiderer,  Reuss,  Neander,  Lechler,  Lip- 
sius,  et  al. 

2  So  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol.  Eng.  tr.  i.  460  (apparently  not,  how- 
ever, in  the  5th  ed.)  ;  Meyer  in  loco.     Per  contra,  Pfleiderer,  Paul- 
inismus,  p.  186,  1  Aufl. ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  185,  186. 


280  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

cially  in  view  of  the  further  explanations  that  follow 
from  verse  10  to  the  end  of  the  chapter. 

A  more  decisi/e  passage  is  Gal.  ii.  20,  where  the 
apostle  is  clearly  discussing  the  nature  of  the  spir- 
itual life  (0eq>  £f)v,  verse  19).  The  thought  here  is : 
"  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ ; "  I  died  to  sin 
when  he  died  on  the  cross  (an  intensely  mystical 
conception) ;  "  and  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live " 
(£«  Be  ovtcen  eyta,  cf.  R.  V.  margin),  "but  [so  far 
from  my  living]  Christ  liveth  in  me ;  and  that  life 
which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh  [o  8e  vvv  £&>  ev  crapici~\  I 
live  in  faith,  the  faith  which  is  in  the  Son  of  God  " 
(ev  Trio-ret  £<w  rf}  rov  vlov  rov  Oeoii).  The  question 
arises  whether  the  phrases  "  Christ  lives  in  me  "  (£77 
Be  ev  e/iot  Xpicrr6<i),  and  "  I  live  in  faith  "  (ev  irlcrrei 
£e3)  are  practically  synonymous.  Weiss  replies  in 
the  negative,  and  holds  that  o  Be  vvv  £«  marks  a  con- 
trast to  £77  ev  e/jLol  Xpivros,  thus  :  Christ  lives  in  me  ; 
my  new  life  is  simply  his  life  in  me,  but  so  far  as  my 
own  personal  life  continues  at  all  in  the  flesh,  it  is 
wholly  in  faith ;  whatever  remains  as  my  part  of  the 
life  I  am  living,  is  wholly  in  trust  upon  him.  On  the 
contrary,  it  seems  far  more  natural  to  take  Be  in 
the  phrase  o  Be  vvv  £o>  as  explanatory  or  continuative, 
just  as  the  same  particle  must  be  taken  in  the  pre- 
ceding phrase,  £<w  Be  ovKe'n  eyca.1  After  the  state- 
ment, "  I  have  been  crucified  with  Christ,"  he  adds 
the  explanation,  "  and  it  is  no  longer  I  that  live,  but 

1  So  Meyer  in  loco  ;  similarly,  De  Wette,  Pfleiderer,  Olshausen, 
Lightfoot,  Ellicott. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION        281 

Christ  liveth  in  me ; "  then  further  to  limit  and  ex- 
plain this  paradoxical  statement,  he  adds  that  he  does 
not  mean  to  deny  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  he  is 
still  living  (£&3  ev  era/? /a),  but  that  so  far  as  he  is  so, 
his  life  is  sustained  by  faith  on  the  Son  of  God. 
When  he  says  that  Christ  lives  in  him,  he  means  that 
Christ  is  the  indwelling  power  of  his  life,  or  in  other 
words,  that  trust  in  Christ  is  his  true  life-element. 
In  view  of  the  mystical  conception  which  underlies 
the  passage,  it  appears  to  be  exegetical  arbitrariness 
to  sever  in  meaning  the  phrases  %g  ev  e'juot  Xpto-ro? 
and  ev  irivrei  £<£,  as  is  done  by  Weiss.  It  seems  to 
me  as  unjustifiable  in  exegesis  as  it  is  unwarranted 
in  theology,  to  separate  Paul's  doctrine  of  faith  from 
his  teaching  concerning  the  mystic  union  of  the  be- 
liever with  Christ.  Why  does  the  believer  alone  enjoy 
such  mystic  union  if  there  is  no  close  connection  be- 
tween faith  and  that  union  ? 

The  true  adjustment  of  the  doctrine  of  faith  and  of 
mystic  union  will  be  found  in  a  careful  definition  of 
the  sense  in  which  faith  is  said  to  be  the  opposite 
of  all  merit.  The  apostle  is  advocating  salvation  by 
grace  alone  as  opposed  to  human  deserving.  He  is 
concerned  with  proving  that  no  works  of  merit  on 
man's  part  can  establish  a  claim  upon  God's  forgive- 
ness, on  the  basis  of  debit  and  credit.  Since,  then,  man 
cannot  be  saved  by  merit,  but  may  be  saved  by  faith, 
it  must  be  evident  that  to  Paul's  mind  it  is  impossi- 
ble to  regard  faith  as  a  "  work  "  founding  a  claim  to 
salvation.  But  this  position  does  not  deny  the  ex- 


282       THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

cellence  of  faith  in  general,  as  an  act  and  disposition 
conformable  to  God's  moral  requirement.  When 
Weiss  says  that  in  Paul's  theology  "faith  excludes 
every  disposition  demanded  in  the  law,"  it  can  only 
be  true  in  the  sense  that  faith  renounces  every  such 
disposition  as  a  ground  of  salvation  or  basis  of  merit, 
not  that  faith  is  the  ethical  contrary  of  those  works 
and  dispositions  of  right  doing  which  the  law  enjoins. 
If  the  statement  were  meant  in  this  latter  sense,  it 
would  come  into  clear  conflict  with  the  Pauline  teach- 
ing that  faith  works  through  love  (Gal.  v.  6),  and  that 
the  way  of  justification  which  is  "  from  faith  to  faith  " 
(Rom.  i.  17)  really  secures  a  fulfilment  of  the  just 
demand  of  the  law  (Rom.  viii.  4). 

In  building  up  his  doctrine  of  justification,  Paul's 
point  of  departure  is  the  believer's  gracious  acquittal 
as  opposed  to  the  idea  of  a  meritorious  claim  entitling 
to  salvation,  and  his  thought  moves  within  the  legal 
sphere.  Faith  is  an  acceptance,  a  renunciation  of 
claim,  a  confession  of  unworthiness,  and  an  act  of 
homage  to  God's  grace.  It  is  without  merit  in  the 
sense  in  which  he  is  contemplating  merit  in  the  de- 
velopment of  the  doctrine ;  namely,  as  a  ground  of 
claiming  acceptance  with  God  as  man's  right.  It  in- 
volves, in  its  very  nature,  an  entire  disclaimer  of  any 
such  right.  But  it  is  not  without  merit  in  the  sense 
that  it  involves  the  right  attitude  of  the  soul  toward 
God,  the  temper  of  humble  dependence  and  thankful 
receptiveness.  In  this  understanding  of  the  terms  it 
would  be  correct  to  say  that  hi  Paul's  view  faith  is 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         283 

without  merit,  but  not  without  excellence.  It  is  the 
very  opposite  of  a  meritorious  claim  upon  God's 
mercy ;  but  there  is  an  ethical  excellence  in  the  re- 
nunciation of  such  a  claim  because  it  is  the  essence 
of  the  obedient  and  teachable  spirit,  and  brings  one 
into  fellowship  of  life  with  Christ,  and  is  thus  the 
condition  of  the  increasing  fulfilment  of  the  divine 
will  in  the  Christian  and  of  his  increasing  likeness  to 
God.1 

That  which  may,  in  accord  with  Pauline  principles, 
be  said  of  faith  in  these  two  aspects  of  it,  might 
be  said  of  kindred  acts  and  exercises  of  the  Christian 
life ;  of  prayer,  for  example.  Prayer  is  no  basis  of 
desert  before  God.  If  it  should  be  contemplated  as  a 
work  of  merit  establishing,  by  any  method  of  equiva- 
lence, a  claim  to  the  favor  of  heaven,  its  true  nature 
and  value  would  be  annulled.  It  was  in  this  light 
that  the  Jews  regarded  their  prayers,  sacrifices,  and 
other  religious  exercises.  They  even  went  so  far  as 
to  suppose  that  works  of  supererogation  done  by  others 
might  found  claims  for  those  who  were  entitled  to 

1  In  drawing  out  this  distinction,  Pfleiderer  (Paulinismus,  p.  1 72 ; 
Eng.  tr.  i.  165)  says  (c/.  Leohler,  Dan  apos.  Zeitaller,  p.  364) 
that  faith  is  "  the  completest  possible  fulfilment  of  the  divine  will, 
not  of  the  commanding  legal  will,  but  of  the  giving,  gracious  will 
of  God ;  it  is  the  trustful  reception  of  the  gracious  gift  which  God 
offers."  This  view  merely  recognizes  in  Paul  the  same  essential 
elements  of  doctrine  which  are  summed  up  in  the  answer  of  Jesus 
to  the  question  of  the  multitudes :  "  What  must  we  do,  that  we  may 
work  the  works  of  God  ?  .  .  .  This  is  the  work  of  God  [TO  tpyot 
TOV  0fov],  that  ye  believe  on  him  whom  he  hath  sent "  (John  vi 
28,  29). 


284  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

their  benefit.1  Paul's  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
is  a  polemic  against  this  view,  and  must  be  understood 
in  the  light  of  this  Pharisaic  perversion.  In  the  Jew- 
ish view,  prayer  would  be  meritorious  as  a  ground  of 
demand  for  reward.  According  to  Pauline  principles 
it  could,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  be  nothing  of  the 
sort.  Its  very  essence  implies  confession  of  depen- 
dence and  a  sense  of  unworthiness.  It  presupposes,  in 
any  right  view  of  it',  appeal  to  God's  grace  alone; 
but  all  excellence  is  not  therefore  denied  to  it.  It  is 
an  evidence  of  real  goodness ;  that  is,  of  trust,  obedi- 
ence, and  love  to  God. 

The  discrimination  which  we  are  making  is  clearly 
seen  and  abundantly  justified  when  we  observe  that 
the  apostle's  arguments  which  emphasize  the  entire 
non-merit  of  faith  are  conducted  on  the  legal  plane, 
while  the  recognition  of  faith  as  involving  the  right 
attitude  and  relation  of  the  soul  to  God,  and  in  that 
sense  as  possessing  religious  value,  is  found  in  the 
ethical  and  spiritual  sphere  of  thought,  where  the 
apostle  is  not  concerned  with  refuting  a  false  theory. 

We  believe  that  in  this  way  —  and  in  this  way  only 
—  can  Paul's  views  be  successfully  harmonized  in 
principle  with  those  of  James  (chap,  ii.)  in  respect 
to  faith  and  works ;  but  what  is  more  to  our  present 
purpose,  it  is  only  thus  that  Paul  can  be  harmonized 
with  himself.  Nor  does  the  objection  longer  remain 
that  he  does  not  wholly  escape  ascribing  a  meritori- 

1  See  Weber,  Die  LeJiren  des  Talmud,  §  61,  entitled,  Die  Ge- 
rechtigkeit  aus  den  guten  Werken. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         285 

ous  character  to  faith.  He  succeeds  perfectly  in 
showing  that  faith  is  without  merit  in  the  legal, 
quid  pro  quo  sense  with  which  he  is  occupied.  He 
does  not  show,  nor  does  he  hold,  that  it  is  without 
moral  excellence  and  value,  and  so  without  a  real 
and  vital  relation  to  that  true  righteousness  which 
consists  in  the  disposition  corresponding  to  the  law's 
requirement. 

This  method  of  thought,  moreover,  is  a  preventive  of 
the  onesidedness  which  is  so  abundantly  illustrated  in 
theology  in  its  treatment  of  these  two  points  of  view 
found  in  the  Pauline  teaching  respecting  salvation. 
One  type  of  thought,  ignoring  the  peculiar  stand- 
point from  which  Paul's  definition  of  the  process  of 
justification  starts,  and  keeping  the  doctrine  abso- 
lutely shut  up  within  legal  analogies,  has  ended  in  a 
fiat  righteousness,  a  faith  without  real  ethical  value, 
and  even  in  a  denial  that  faith  was  reckoned  for 
righteousness  at  all.  Another  type  of  thought,  equally 
neglecting  the  motive  of  the  formal  doctrine,  though 
for  very  different  reasons,  has  taken  up  the  ethical 
side,  and  treating  righteousness  rather  as  a  human 
attainment  than  as  a  divine  gift,  and  regarding  faith 
and  righteousness  as  virtually  identical,  have  come 
perilously  near  to  making  faith  a  meritorious  "  work," 
and  righteousness  a  name  for  man's  own  actual  spir- 
itual attainments.  A  true  synthesis  of  the  truths  which 
are  thus  apprehended  in  a  onesided  manner  is  found  in 
the  position  which  alone  accords  with  the  whole  circle 
of  Pauline  ideas :  that  faith,  though  founding  no  legal 


286  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

claim  to  divine  favor,  is  the  soul's  disposition  of 
receptiveness  and  trust  toward  God,  —  the  right  and 
required  attitude  of  the  mind  and  heart,  —  and  is 
therefore  the  morally  necessary  condition  of  a  man's 
being  what  he  ought  to  be ;  that  the  judgment  of  justi- 
fication, while  accepting  faith  for  righteousness,  —  that 
is,  for  more  than  it  actually  is,  —  and  declaring  the 
sinner  fully  acquitted  on  the  ground  of  Christ's  work, 
is  yet  no  legal  fiction.  It  declares  the  believer  right- 
eous, not  in  a  merely  legal  manner,  for  he  is  not  such 
in  the  sense  of  having  fulfilled  all  God's  require- 
ments ;  but  in  a  gracious  manner,  accepting  by  antici- 
pation his  faith  for  righteousness,  because  faith  unites 
him  to  Christ,  and  this  union  is  the  guaranty  of 
increasing  and  full  final  perfection  of  life.  Faith, 
then,  is  not  righteousness ;  the  two  conceptions  are 
generically  different.  Faith  is  humility,  receptiveness, 
trust ;  righteousness  is  correspondence  with  a  divinely 
given  norm  ;  but  they  are  vitally  related  because  faith 
is  the  act  by  which  the  soul  comes  into  living  union 
with  Christ,  —  a  union  which  assures  increasing 
growth  in  Christlikeness. 

The  Augustinian  and  Calvinistic  theology  never 
successfully  accomplished  a  synthesis  of  these  two 
elements  of  Paulinism,  and  therefore  never  made  a 
genetic  connection  between  the  doctrines  of  justifica- 
tion and  sanctification.  This  type  of  thought  has 
treated  them  apart,  and  has  defined  justification  in  so 
formal  and  legal  a  manner  as  to  give  it  no  essential 
internal  point  of  connection  with  the  development  of 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         287 

spiritual  life.  They  are  certainly  not  to  be  identified 
or  confused ;  but  neither  are  they  to  be  separated  and 
treated  as  if  they  were  without  an  inner  connection. 
The  processes  of  spiritual  life  described  in  Rom.  v., 
vi.,  and  viii.  may  be  said  to  belong  rather  to  sanctifi- 
cation  than  to  justification ;  but  upon  close  examina- 
tion it  is  found  impossible  not  to  carry  back  the 
conceptions  here  presented,  and  apply  them  to  the 
nature  and  beginnings  of  salvation  as  well  as  to  its 
progressive  work.  If  the  life  and  character  which 
are  pictured  in  Rom.  viii.  as  belonging  to  the  man 
who  is  "  in  Christ "  are  attained,  then  the  promise 
and  beginning  of  that  life  must  have  been  already 
present  when  the  soul  entered  into  Christ  by  faith. 
If  the  righteousness  which  actually  fulfils  the  law's 
demands  is  more  and  more  realized  in  the  justified 
man,  its  power  must  have  already  taken  hold  upon 
the  life  when  God  pronounced  his  righteousness  to  be 
the  soul's  possession.  Faith  links  us  to  Christ;  in 
that  fact  lie  its  power  and  its  value.  It  connects  us 
with  the  Source  and  Giver  of  life.  It  involves  no 
merit  in  us ;  yet  it  is  the  right  attitude  and  temper  of 
the  soul  toward  God's  grace  in  Christ.  Righteous- 
ness is  right  standing  before  God  ;  in  more  ethical 
terms,  equally  accordant  with  Paulinism,  it  is  corre- 
spondence to  what  we  ought  to  be.  We  cannot  achieve 
it,  but  we  can  seek  and  accept  it.  We  can  fulfil  the 
conditions  of  trust  and  obedience  which  are  necessary 
to  its  progressive  attainment. 
This  self-renouncing  trust  God  accepts  for  the 


288  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

righteousness  after  which  we  long ;  in  other  terms, 
he  graciously  reckons  the  true  perfection  of  life  as 
ours  already,  because  in  joining  our  lives  to  Christ  we 
have  entered  the  way  of  its  increasing  realization.  In 
the  union  of  the  soul  with  Christ  and  the  consequent 
participation  in  his  life  lies  the  guaranty  of  the  com- 
pletion in  the  believer's  life  of  the  righteousness  which 
is  already,  by  anticipation,  accorded  him.  Thus  the 
real  moral  value  and  power  of  faith  are  recognized 
without  making  it  a  meritorious  "  work,"  or  in  any 
sense  a  ground  of  salvation ;  and  an  ethical  content  is 
given  to  righteousness  without  making  it  a  human 
achievement.  Thus  a  real  point  of  contact  is  seen  to 
exist  between  faith  and  righteousness.  The  former  is 
no  mere  assent,  and  the  latter  no  mere  legal  fiction. 
Justification  is  not  a  mere  fiat  of  God,  but  has  as  its 
essence  the  great  reality  of  a  new  relation  to  God,  and 
involves  the  action  of  those  spiritual  forces  which 
work  for  renewed  character,  and  which  are  from  the 
very  first  operative  in  the  religious  life. 

Some  of  the  older  Protestant  theologians  have 
apprehended  and  defined  the  deepest  realities  of  faith 
and  justification  in  such  a  way  as  to  do  full  justice  to 
the  scope  of  the  apostle's  thoughts,  and  none  more 
clearly  than  Gerhard,  who,  in  commenting  on  the  pas- 
sages which  speak  of  the  imputation  of  faith,  says,— 

"  The  apostle  is  speaking  of  faith,  not  as  it  is  a  quality 
inhering  in  us  (for  in  that  respect  it  does  not  justify,  since 
it  is  obedience  to  only  one  commandment,  is  imperfect, 
and  long  already  due),  but  as  it  apprehends  the  redemp- 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION         289 

tion  of  Christ.  Scripture  not  only  asserts  that  faith  is 
accounted  to  us  for  righteousness,  but  also  that  Christ  is 
our  righteousness  (1  Cor.  i.  30 ;  2  Cor.  v.  21).  Since, 
therefore,  Christ  and  faith  are  said  to  be  at  the  same 
time  our  righteousness,  the  consequence  is  that  faith  is 
and  is  called  our  righteousness,  because  it  apprehends 
Christ's  righteousness  and  makes  it  ours."  l 

It  is  not  necessary,  we  think,  to  follow  further  the 
course  of  Paul's  thoughts  regarding  the  ethical  side  of 
those  changed  relations  to  God  and  Christ  which  are 
entered  into  by  faith.  These  representations  will 
come  into  view  again  in  considering  Paul's  doctrine 
of  the  Christian  life.  It  is  sufficient  for  our  present 
purpose  to  have  pointed  out  the  bearing  which  they 
must  have  upon  any  view  of  justification  which  not 
only  considers  the  polemic  development  of  his  doc- 
trine on  the  legal  plane,  but  also  seeks  to  penetrate  to 
the  real  center  of  his  thoughts  and  to  grasp  them  iu 
their  inner  unity  and  harmony.  Weiss  has,  we  think 
somewhat  too  guardedly,  admitted  the  possibility  of 
such  a  union  of  the  ethical  and  the  formal  in  Paul's 
doctrine  of  justification  as  we  have  sought  to  establish, 
in  these  words  :  — 

"  This  fact  [that  justification  is  an  act  of  pure  grace] 
by  no  means  excludes  the  possibility  that,  as  Paul  con- 
ceives faith,  it  really  involves  a  restoration  in  principle 
of  the  right  religious  relation  of  man  to  God,  a  restoration 
which  guarantees  a  fulfilment  of  his  religious-moral  task, 
and  is  therefore  the  deepest  germ  of  the  full 

1  Loci  Theologici,  vii.  262. 
19 


290  THE  PAULINE   THEOLOGY 

But  Paul  certainly  does  not  reflect  upon  this  ;  he  regards 
the  reckoning  of  faith  as  a  pure  act  of  grace,  etc."  1 

If  the  assertion  that  Paul  has  not  reflected  upon 
faith  as  involving  "  a  restoration  in  principle  of  the 
right  religious  relation  of  man  to  God,"  means  only 
that  he  has  not  explicitly  denned  the  connection  of 
faith  with  sanctification,  it  is,  beyond  question,  cor- 
rect. If  it  means  that  this  relation  is  not  essentially 
implied  and  assumed  in  Paul's  thought,  and  necessary 
to  be  recognized  in  any  systematic  development  of  his 
doctrines,  we  should  dissent  from  it.  The  "  possi- 
bility "  which  Weiss  regards  as  not  excluded  would 
better  be  treated  as  a  fact  which  must  be  included  in 
any  construction  of  Paulinism  which  is  not  a  mere 
piece-meal  grouping  and  exegesis  of  texts,  but  a 
synthetic  exhibition  of  the  apostle's  thoughts. 

A  study  of  Paul's  theology  which  will  comprehend 
in  one  view  the  various  complementary  aspects  of 
his  teaching,  an<J  combine  into  unity  all  the  elements 
of  his  thought  concerning  the  method  of  salvation, 
will  conduct  the  mind,  as  it  seems  to  me,  not  merely 
to  the  guarded  admission  of  Weiss,  but  to  the  position 
of  Neander,  who  says,  — 

"  The  righteousness  of  faith,  in  the  Pauline  sense,  in- 
cludes the  essence  of  a  new  disposition.  Accordingly 
it  [justification]  is  not  an  arbitrary  act  on  the  part  of  God, 
as  if  he  regarded  and  treated  as  sinless  a  man  persisting 
in  sin,  simply  because  he  believes  in  Christ;  but  the 

1  Bib.  Theol.  §  82  b,  note  4 ;  Eng.  tr.  i.  440,  note  3. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  JUSTIFICATION        291 

objective  on  the  part  of  God  corresponds  to  the  subjective 
on  the  part  of  man,  —  namely,  faith,  —  and  this  necessarily 
includes  in  itself  a  release  from  the  state  inherited  from 
Adam,  from  the  whole  life  of  sin  and  the  entrance  into 
spiritual  fellowship  with  the  Redeemer,  the  appropriation 
of  his  divine  life.  .  .  .  Thus  [in  faith]  there  is  an  en- 
trance into  communion  with  the  Redeemer,  and  a  new 
principle  of  life  is  received  which  continually  penetrates 
and  transforms  the  old  nature.  Faith  is  the  spiritual  act 
by  virtue  of  which,  in  surrendering  ourselves  to  him  who 
died  for  us,  we  die  to  a  life  of  sin,  to  the  world,  to  our- 
selves, to  all  which  we  were  before,  and  rise  again  in 
his  fellowship,  in  the  power  of  his  Spirit,  to  a  new  life 
devoted  to  him  and  animated  by  him."  1 

1  Planting  and  Training,  Bohn  ed.  i.  pp.  457-459;  Am.  ed. 
pp.  418,  419. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  CHRISTIAN   LIFE 

THE  doctrine  of  faith  furnishes  the  starting-point 
from  which  Paul's  whole  view  of  the  nature  and 
demands  of  the  Christian  life  is  developed.  It  is  the 
principle  of  salvation  by  faith  which  separates  his 
doctrine  of  religion  so  widely  from  the  popular  Jewish 
conceptions  of  his  time,  and  which  accounts  for  the 
distinctive  elements  of  his  theology.  The  Jewish 
idea  was  that  salvation  was  to  be  won  by  good  deeds, 
especially  by  the  observance  of  commandments.  The 
practical  result  of  this  theory  was  the  development 
of  a  spirit  of  self-righteousness  on  the  one  hand,  and 
of  an  uncertainty  of  acceptance  with  God,  on  the 
other.  If  one  had  faithfully  done  the  prescribed 
duties,  he  would  easily  fall  into  self-congratulation, 
yet  could  not  be  sure  that  he  had  done  enough.  The 
religious  consciousness  wavered  thus  perpetually  be- 
tween these  two  dangers,  each  of  which  was  fatal  to 
a  healthy  and  stable  religious  life.  By  his  doctrine 
of  faith  the  apostle  escaped  both  these  pitfalls.  Faith 
was,  in  its  very  nature,  a  disclaimer  of  merit,  and  in- 
volved a  temper  of  self-abnegation  and  dependence; 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  293 

but  it  led  to  a  confident  assurance  of  salvation,  be- 
cause it  reposed  its  trust  solely  in  the  grace  of  God 
which  had  been  manifested  in  Christ.  In  the  very 
act  of  renouncing  works  as  a  means  of  attaining  divine 
favor,  faith  presupposes  the  willingness  of  God  to 
accept  those  who  make  no  claims  of  personal  worthi- 
ness and  who  consent  to  receive  forgiveness  as  a  gift 
of  grace.  The  very  act  of  self-surrender  in  which 
man  confesses  his  unworthiness  of  Heaven's  favor  is 
the  act  in  which  he  enters  into  the  possession  of  a 
full  assurance  of  salvation,  because  thereby  he  escapes 
out  of  himself,  and  putting  his  case  beyond  the  reach 
of  mere  human  standards  of  judgment,  casts  himself 
upon  the  promised  compassion  of  God.1 

We  have  seen  that  justification  is  the  formal  act  by 
which  one  is  admitted  to  the  Christian  life,  and  that 
faith  is  the  condition  of  this  admission.  The  way  of 
life  is  entered  by  the  gateway  of  humility.  No  one 
in  entering  can  suppose  that  he  is  doing  so  because 
of  any  right  or  claim  which  is  founded  on  his  own 
achievements,  but  must  recognize  the  fact  that  he  is 
received  solely  because  God  is  gracious  and  treats  him 
better  than  he  deserves.  The  spiritual  life  which  now 
follows  his  justification  is  not  to  be  looked  upon  as  a 
development  from  faith,  considered  as  the  man's  own 
act,  but  as  a  divine  impartation  which  faith  makes 
possible  and  thankfully  receives.  It  would  be  as  con- 

1  Cf.  Schiirer,  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Christ,  Divi- 
sion II.  vol.  ii.  §  28,  entitled,  Life  under  the  Law;  especially  page 
125. 


294  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

trary  to  Pauline  principles  to  describe  the  spiritual 
life  as  flowing  from  faith  as  its  source  as  it  would  be 
to  trace  it  to  legal  works  of  righteousness.  Faith  is 
the  condition  precedent,  on  man's  part,  to  the  spiritual 
life ;  or,  in  other  terms,  it  is  the  humble  acceptance 
of  what  God  provides  and  offers  to  the  soul.  While 
we  have  sought  to  show,  as  against  views  which  make 
justification  a  mere  fiction,  that  this  attitude  of  trust 
and  self-surrender  is  the  right  attitude,  has  an  ethical 
significance  and  value,  and  is,  so  far,  a  fulfilment  of 
God's  moral  will,  it  is  equally  important  for  a  just 
view  of  the  spiritual  life  to  remember  that  it  is  not 
the  product  of  faith,  but  is  a  gift  of  God  which  man 
by  faith  receives.  It  is  God's  gracious  will  that  man 
should  relinquish  his  fruitless  efforts  to  merit  salva- 
tion, and  be  content  in  humble  dependence  to  enter  by 
trust  in  Christ  and  by  the  appropriation  of  undeserved 
favor  upon  the  way  toward  the  realization  of  his  true 
mission  and  destiny.  In  faith  man  accepts  this  offer ; 
in  faith  he  continues  to  avail  himself  of  its  benefits. 
Thus  in  the  gospel  God's  righteousness  is  revealed 
"  from  faith  to  faith"  (Rom.  i.  17);  the  appropriation 
of  salvation  is  throughout  a  matter  of  faith.  The 
religious  value  of  faith  cannot  lie  in  the  act  of  be- 
lieving in  itself  considered,  but  lies  in  the  new  rela- 
tion which  faith  involves  and  which,  on  man's  part, 
faith  constitutes;  namely,  the  relation  of  fellowship 
with  Christ.  Whatever  may  be  the  reason  why  faith 
is  reckoned  for  righteousness,  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  it  is  the  condition  of  the  development  of  Christian 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  295 

character  because  it  involves  obedience  to  Christ  and 
fellowship  of  spirit  with  him. 

The  favorite  expression  by  which  the  apostle  desig- 
nates this  personal  relation  which  faith  implies,  is 
that  of  a  dwelling  of  the  believer  in  Christ  or  of 
Christ  in  him.  The  one  who  is  "  in  Christ "  is  a 
"  new  creature  "  (2  Cor.  v.  17)  ;  those  who  are  "  in 
Christ  Jesus  "  are  not  subject  to  condemnation  (Rom. 
viii.  1).  The  spirits  of  those  in  whom  Christ  dwells  are 
quickened  into  new  life  "  on  account  of  righteousness  " 
(Rom.  viii.  10);  that  is,  because  they  are  now  justified.1 
The  significance  of  baptism,  the  initiatory  rite  of  the 
Christian  Church,  is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  expresses 
and  ratifies  this  relation.  It  is  a  baptism  "  into 
Christ"  (et<?  Xpia-rov)  or  "into his  death"  (Rom.  vi.  3); 
that  is,  baptism  into  Christ  signifies  that  entrance 
into  personal  fellowship  and  life-communion  with 
Christ  which  is  denoted  by  the  expression,  to  die  with 
Christ  (Rom.  vi.  8),  or  to  die  to  sin  (Rom.  vi.  2).  As 
many,  therefore,  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ 

1  This  phrase  (8ta  diKatotrvvrjv)  is  interpreted  by  many  as  de- 
noting righteousness  of  life  (so  Hodge,  Tholuck,  De  Wette,  Weiss). 
The  last-named  scholar  maintains  this  (Bib.  The.ol.  §  96  c,  note  2) 
on  the  ground  that  only  ethical  and  never  imputed  righteousness  is 
considered  by  Paul  as  proceeding  from  the  indwelling  of  Christ  in 
the  believer  by  his  Spirit.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  heUl 
that  here  the  life  which  the  Spirit  imparts  is  considered  as  pro- 
ceeding from  righteousness :  the  Spirit  becomes  the  new  life- 
principle  in  the  believer  because  of  righteousness ;  that  is,  because 
of  his  acceptance  in  justification.  This  appears  to  be  the  rela- 
tion of  the  apostle's  thoughts  here  (so  Philippi,  Godet,  Olshausen, 
Meyer). 


296  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

have  put  on  Christ  (Gal.  iii.  27),  have  made  him  the 
life-element  of  the  soul. 

Of  those  who  have  been  "  crucified  with  Christ " 
the  apostle  can  affirm  that  "Christ  lives"  in  them,  or, 
in  practically  equivalent  terms,  that  they  "  live  in 
faith  which  is  in  the  Son  of  God  "  (Gal.  ii.  20).  His 
meaning  is,  that  the  death  of  Christ  is  the  ground  of 
that  moral  renewal  which,  by  a  mystical  identification 
of  the  procuring  cause  with  its  effect,  is  called  a  cruci- 
fixion with  Christ  on  his  cross,  an  ethical  dying  to  sin 
when  he  died,  or,  dropping  the  figure,  a  cessation  of 
the  old  sinful  life  through  the  appropriation  of  the 
benefits  of  his  atoning  death.  This  death  to  sin  is 
followed  by  a  life  to  righteousness  (Rom.  vi.  11).  Ex- 
pressed in  terms  derived  from  baptism,  the  burial  into 
death  depicts  the  cessation  of  the  sinful  self,  and  has 
its  complement  in  the  resurrection  to  newness  of  life 
which  ensues  (Rom.  vi.  4).  When  this  transition  into 
a  new  status,  this  commitment  of  the  life  to  a  new 
determining  principle,  is  accomplished,  there  begins 
a  development  in  holiness  which  may  be  described, 
on  its  human  side,  as  a  living  in  faith,  or  on  its  divine 
side,  as  a  living  of  Christ  in  the  soul  (Gal.  ii.  20). 
Here  it  again  appears  that  there  is  a  life  of  faith  as 
well  as  an  act  of  faith.  The  spirit  of  surrender  and 
acceptance  which  is  involved  in  the  initial  act  of  trust 
continues  as  the  characteristic  temper  of  the  Christian 
man,  and  becomes  a  fixed  mood  of  conscious  depen- 
dence and  receptiveness.  How  evident,  then,  does  it 
become  that  faith  as  a  condition  of  acceptance  with 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  297 

God  does  not  stand  in  isolation  from  the  spiritual  life 
that  follows  it.  It  continues  to  be  what  it  was  at  the 
first,  —  the  attitude  of  humility  and  trust  in  which  all 
divine  grace  is  thankfully  received.  It  remains  the 
subjective  principle  of  the  new  life,  the  human  conditio 
sine  qua  non  of  spiritual  life  and  growth,  as  truly  as 
divine  grace  is  its  objective  principle,  the /cms  et  origo 
of  the  forces  of  renewal  and  sanctification.  The  sharp 
separation  of  justification  from  sanctification,  as  if 
they  had  no  internal  and  generic  connection,  but  only 
a  relation  of  sequence,  denies  to  faith  the  function  in 
the  development  of  spiritual  life  which  the  apostle 
assigned  to  it,  and  leaves  it  standing  in  isolation  at 
the  beginning  of  the  new  life,  instead  of  conceiving  of 
it  as  the  entrance  into  a  personal  relation  which  con- 
tinues constant  and  unchanged.  The  type  of  theo- 
logical thought  which  holds  forensic  justification  in 
rigid  separation  from  the  mysticism  of  faith  neg- 
lects a  most  essential  element  in  Paul's  theology; 
namely,  that  religion  is  a  personal  relation.  When 
theology  has  made  deep  and  wide  the  gulf  between 
justification  and  spiritual  life,  and  has  restricted  faith 
to  the  former,  it  is  then  powerless  to  bridge  the 
chasm  which  it  has  made,  and  is  compelled  to  make 
real  religion  begin  de  novo  after  justification.1 

1  The  exposition  of  Weiss  is  as  striking  an  example  of  this 
complete  dissociation  of  justification  from  sanctification  as  can  be 
found  in  the  older  dogmatics.  They  are,  in  his  view,  "  two  divine 
saving  deeds,"  without  connection  in  nature  or  result.  The  real 
Christian  life  is  no  more  begun  when  a  man  is  merely  justified 


298       THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

With  Paul  the  value  and  power  of  religion  consist  in 
the  personal  relations  of  the  believer  with  God.  The 
Christian  life  is  begun,  so  far  as  man's  part  in  it  is 
concerned,  in  the  entrance  of  the  soul  into  a  right 
relation  to  God,  and  it  is  perpetuated  in  the  constancy 
and  increasing  closeness  of  that  relation.  Man's  part 
in  the  constitution  of  this  relation  is  faith,  and  his 
part  in  the  continuance  and  strengthening  of  it  con- 
tinues to  be  faith.  The  Christian  life  has  a  strict 
unity  and  continuity.  In  the  very  nature  of  faith,  as 
Paul  conceives  of  it,  is  involved  that  personal  fellow- 
ship in  which  alone  the  importation  of  spiritual  life 
from  God  can  take  place.  The  power  and  religious 
value  of  faith,  therefore,  are  not  in  the  faith  itself, 
considered  as  an  act  or  exercise,  but  in  the  rela- 
tion of  abiding  fellowship  and  life-union  which  faith 
constitutes.  Faith  is  not  a  mere  confidence  that  a 
work  of  grace  will  be  done  for  us,  but  a  consent  that 
a  work  of  grace  shall  be  wrought  in  us.  The  power 
of  faith  thus  resides  not  in  its  exercise,  as  if  it  were 
an  achievement,  but  in  its  object,  because  it  is  a  per- 
sonal relation  of  one  who  is  helpless  and  dependent 
to  Christ,  who  is  able  to  save  and  purify. 

This  personal  conception  of  religion  is  absolutely 
central  in  all  Paul's  thinking.  Religion  is  not  a  hold- 
ing of  things  for  true ;  nor  is  it  even  merely  a  trust 
in  a  work  which  has  been  or  is  to  be  wrought  for  one ; 

than  it  was  before;  this  life  begins  in  his  baptism  when  the  be- 
liever is  "  put  in  principle  into  the  state  of  holiness,  and  therewith 
into  that  of  actual  righteousness,"  Bib.  Theol.  §  85  d. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  299 

it  is  also,  and  much  more,  a  glad  and  loyal  obedience 
proceeding  from  personal  love  to  Christ, — a  life  which 
springs  from  fellowship  with  him,  and  is  controlled 
by  the  power  of  his  Spirit  (Rom.  viii.  9).  The  moral 
character  and  spiritual  life  which  must  ensue  upon 
justification  are  strongly  depicted  in  Rom.  vi.  Can 
any  one  infer,  asks  the  apostle,  from  the  truth  that 
"  where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  abound  more  exceed- 
ingly "  (Rom.  v.  20),  that  sin  was  desirable  because  it 
called  forth  the  exercise  of  grace,  —  on  the  principle, 
the  more  sin  the  more  grace  (verse  1)  ?  Against  such 
a  conclusion  is  to  be  opposed  the  very  nature  of  the 
Christian  life  (verse  2).  To  be  justified  implies  a  new 
heart ;  if  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  life  is  a  break- 
ing loose  from  sin,  its  continuance  must  secure  a 
positive  attainment  of  holiness ;  if  we  have  begun  by 
dying  with  Christ,  we  must  continue  by  rising  with 
him  into  a  new  spiritual  character  (verses  5-13).  As 
Christians  our  lives  are  ruled  by  new  powers ;  we 
have  exchanged  masters.  From  the  sin  to  which  we 
were  formerly  in  bondage  we  are  now  free,  and  to 
the  righteousness  from  which  we  were  once  free  we 
are  now  in  bondage  (verses  16-20).  In  other  passages 
the  new  life  is  attributed  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit 
as  the  determining  power  in  the  renewed  man.  Before 
justification  man  is  carnal  (crapKi/cos,  1  Cor.  iii.  3) ;  he 
is  said  to  walk  according  to  the  flesh  (Kara  crdptca  Trepi- 
Trareiv,  Rom.  viii.  4)  and  to  have  his  thoughts  and 
efforts  directed  toward  the  interests  of  the  flesh  (ra 
TT;?  o-aptcbs  <f)poveiv,  Rom.  viii.  5).  In  becoming  a  Chris- 


300  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

tian,  he  becomes  a  spiritual  man  (Trvevnarucbs,  1  Cor.  ii. 
15 ;  iii.  1),  a  man  whose  life  is  inspired  and  shaped 
by  the  Divine  Spirit.  The  Christian,  then,  is  no  longer 
in  the  flesh  (ev  o-a/m,  Rom.  viii.  9)  as  his  life-element, 
but  in  the  spirit  (ev  TrvevpaTi).  It  is  true  that  the 
dominion  of  sin  is  not  in  fact  wholly  overcome. 
Those  who  are  ideally,  and  even  actually  "  spiritual," 
are  but  relatively  so.  They  may  also  be  at  the 
same  time  relatively  carnal  (1  Cor.  iii.  1),  or  psy- 
chical (i/rt^Ko?,  ii.  14),  though  they  may  not  be 
supremely  and  characteristically  so,  since  their  Chris- 
tian life,  in  its  very  idea,  is  directed  toward  sanc- 
tification  (ei9  ayiacrfjuov,  Rom.  vi.  19).  All  the  ideals 
and  hopes  of  the  Christian  life  appeal  to  the  be- 
liever to  cleanse  himself  from  every  sinful  defilement 
which  may  cleave  to  either  body  or  spirit,  thus 
"  perfecting  holiness  [ayHoa-i/vij']  in  the  fear  of  God  " 
(2  Cor.  vii.  1). 

It  will  be  evident,  then,  that  Christianity  secures 
not  merely  a  judicial  acquittal,  but  a  practical  freedom 
from  sin  and  attainment  of  righteousness.  Those  who 
have  received  the  Spirit  by  the  hearing  of  faith 
(Gal.  iii.  2) — that  is,  by  receiving  the  message  which 
proclaimed  faith  as  the  first  requirement  in  religion 
—  must  also  "  walk  by  the  Spirit,"  and  in  so  doing  will 
not  "  fulfil  the  lust  of  the  flesh  "  (Gal.  v.  16).  The 
fact  that  the  Spirit  is  received  when  faith  is  exercised 
shows  that  justification  is  not  an  act  separate  and 
apart  from  spiritual  life,  and  also  points  out  in  advance 
the  nature  and  demands  of  the  growth  which  is  to 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  301 

follow.  "  If  we  live  by  the  Spirit,  by  the  Spirit  let  us 
also  walk  "(Gal.  v.  25). 

We  are  enabled  in  the  light  of  these  thoughts  to 
see  the  connection  between  Paul's  scheme  of  doctrine 
and  his  practical  view  of  the  Christian  life.  In  his 
dogmatic  the  facts  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection 
are  the  objective  ground  of  salvation ;  but  according  to 
his  view  of  the  Christian  life,  the  actual  appropriation 
of  these  does  not  take  place  without  the  reception  of 
Christ's  Spirit  (Rom.  viii.  9),  the  entrance  of  the 
believer  into  life-union  with  Christ,  so  that  there  is  a 
reciprocal  indwelling  of  Christ  and  the  Christian  in 
each  other  (Gal.  ii.  20  ;  iii.  28 ;  Col.  in.  3).  Paul's 
doctrine  of  the  office  of  the  law  may  also  be  readily 
adjusted  to  his  view  of  the  true  life  in  Christ.  "  Love 
is  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  [7r\rfpa)/j,a  i/o/tov],"  (Rom. 
xiii.  10) ;  and  since  love  is  at  once  the  chief  require- 
ment of  the  Christian  life  (1  Cor.  xii.  31 ;  xiii.  1-3) 
and  the  essence  of  the  law's  demand,  those  who  pos- 
sess this  all-comprehending  virtue  do  really  fulfil  the 
law's  just  requirement  (TO  St/ra/&>/ia  TOV  VQ/J.OV,  Rom. 
viii.  4).  Christianity  contemplates  a  life  of  real,  posi- 
tive righteousness;  and  this  goal  is  actually  attained 
in  the  proportion  in  which  the  believer  enters  into 
the  possession  of  Christ's  Spirit  and  the  personal 
appropriation  of  his  life. 

It  must  be  evident,  then,  that  the  conception  of  the 
law  as  developing  the  consciousness  of  sin,  upon  which, 
as  we  saw  in  chapter  viii.,  Paul  has  dwelt  most  fully, 
does  not  exhaust  his  idea  of  the  meaning  and  use  of 


802  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  law.  That  was  a  special  view  of  the  subject  which 
was  adapted  to  his  purpose  in  refuting  the  doctrine  of 
salvation  by  obedience  to  the  law.  Considered  as  a 
means  of  salvation,  the  law  was  utterly  powerless. 
Since  men  could  not  obey  its  commandments,  it  must 
point  out  and  condemn  their  sins  and  intensify  their 
sense  of  them ;  but  when  the  law  is  contemplated 
from  the  point  of  view  of  its  ideal  moral  requirements, 
it  is  to  the  apostle  the  epitome  of  all  morality  and 
goodness  (Rom.  vii.  12-14).  It  is  natural  that  Paul 
should  dwell  most  on  the  negative  aspect  of  the  law 
because  that  alone  suited  the  aim  of  his  polemic; 
when,  on  the  other  hand,  he  turns  to  that  positive 
life  of  holiness  which  Christianity  requires  and 
secures,  and  which  fulfils  the  law,  he  defines  it,  not  in 
terms  of  the  law,  but  in  terms  drawn  from  the  con- 
ceptions of  Christlikeness  and  of  the  indwelling  of 
his  Spirit.  There  is,  therefore,  no  antinomy  between 
these  two  conceptions  of  the  law ;  nor  is  there  any- 
thing strange  or  unnatural  in  the  frequent  emphasis 
of  the  former  in  Paul's  argument  against  the  Pharisaic 
doctrine  of  salvation  and  the  very  incidental,  though 
plain,  recognition  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  law  which 
is  accomplished  in  the  Christian  life,  since,  in  present- 
ing this  truth,  the  apostle's  thoughts  pass  out  of  the 
legal  sphere  and  center  in  the  perfection  of  Christ 
and  the  appropriation  of  his  Holy  Spirit. 

The  freedom  of  the  Christian  is  not  a  mere  judicial 
release  from  condemnation.  One  becomes  truly  free 
from  the  law  and  from  its  judgment  upon  sin,  not  by 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  303 

any  method  of  evading  its  demands,  but  only  by  ful- 
filling them.  The  contrast  to  the  state  of  bondage 
under  the  law  is  described  when  Paul  says  that  Chris- 
tians "  became  obedient  from  the  heart  to  that  form 
[or  type,  TI/TTO?]  of  teaching  whereunto  they  were  de- 
livered "  (Rom.  vi.  17).  Before  their  conversion  they 
were  "bond-servants  [SouAot]  of  sin"  and  were  there- 
fore "  free  in  regard  of  righteousness "  (e\ev0epot  rfi 
SiKaioffvvrj,  vi.  20) ;  that  is,  they  were  not  living  in 
obedience  to  the  divine  will.  "  But  now,"  he  adds, 
"  being  made  free  from  sin,  and  become  servants  to 
God,  ye  have  your  fruit  unto  sanctification,  and  the 
end  eternal  life"  (vi.  22).  This  freedom  from  sin 
is  a  practical  and  effectual  deliverance  from  the  power 
of  sin  as  a  determining  principle  of  life. 

The  apostle's  teaching,  in  regard  to  the  believer's 
relation  with  Christ  which  we  have  thus  briefly  traced, 
sets  forth  most  forcibly  the  personal  nature  of  religion 
and  the  demands  which  arise  from  that  relation.  For 
a  description  of  the  principle  which  is  most  funda- 
mental in  this  life  in  Christ,  we  must  turn  to  his 
doctrine  of  love.  We  have  seen  how  love  is  the  ful- 
filling of  the  law.  In  an  eloquent  passage  he  else- 
where (1  Cor.  xiii.)  accords  to  love  the  pre-eminence 
among  the  virtues,  and  shows  how  valueless  are  all 
spiritual  endowments  and  powers  without  love  to  in- 
spire and  direct  them.  He  had  been  commenting,  in 
the  previous  chapter,  upon  the  variety  of  gifts  which 
the  Spirit  bestows  upon  Christians,  and  had  cautioned 
his  readers  against  jealousy  and  rivalry  in  the  cultiva- 


304  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

tion  and  use  of  these  charismata.  It  appears  from 
chapter  xiv.  that  the  Corinthians  preferred  the  gift 
of  tongues,  a  species  of  ecstatic  utterance  in  prayer 
(xiv.  2)  which  was  not  readily  understood  by  the 
people,  and  which  required  to  be  interpreted  (verses 
27,  28).  Paul  himself,  however,  preferred  the  gift  of 
prophecy  or  preaching  (xiv.  4,  5)  on  the  ground  that 
it  could  be  understood  by  all  and  was  more  useful  for 
the  edification  of  the  Church  and  for  impressing  the 
unconverted  in  the  assembly  (verses  23,  24). 

In  chapter  xiii.  the  apostle's  first  aim  is  to  show 
that  all  these  endowments,  greater  and  smaller,  are 
morally  valueless  without  love  (verses  1-3).  If  he 
could  rise  to  the  highest  ecstatic  states  which  have 
been  granted,  not  only  to  men,  but  to  angels,  his 
speech  in  that  condition  of  exaltation  would  still  be 
but  as  empty  and  meaningless  sound  without  love. 
The  more  highly  esteemed  gift  of  prophecy  is  equally 
valueless  without  it.  "Though  I  should  know  the 
mysteries  of  redemption  in  all  their  extent  [ra  fjLva-rrjpia 
Trdvra] ,  and  possess  the  knowledge  of  them  in  all  their 
depths  [jrraa-av  TTJV  yvw<nv~\  ;  and  if  to  this  were  added 
the  most  heroic  faith,  the  sublime  confidence  in  God 
which  is  necessary  to  the  accomplishment  of  miracu- 
lous works,  I  am  still  nothing,"  says  the  apostle  ;  "  I 
am  not  thereby  brought  nearer  the  true  goal  of  my 
life,  if  I  am  wanting  in  love."  The  enthusiasm  of 
highly  wrought  feeling,  the  fullest  possible  possession 
of  truth,  the  sublimest  heroism  of  faith,  and  the  most 
self-denying  sacrifice,  —  all  are  worthless  in  God's 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  305 

sight  without  love.  Why  ?  Because  love  alone  can 
direct  them  to  their  true  ends  ;  because  love  is  the 
quality  of  life  which  helps  and  serves  and  blesses. 
The  attributes  and  activities  of  love  which  are  next 
depicted  (verses  4-7),  show  that  love  is  the  one  all- 
comprehending  and  enduring  virtue,  and  the  principle 
of  every  form  of  goodness.  Without  it  enthusiasm 
becomes  an  aimless  play  of  feeling ;  knowledge  a  mere 
intellectual  apprehension  of  truth  without  formative 
influence  upon  character ;  heroism  a  bold  and  boast- 
ful confidence,  and  self-denial  a  purposeless  asceti- 
cism, placing  virtue  in  mere  suffering  and  serving  no 
rational  or  moral  end. 

But  to  the  question,  why  love  is  the  queen  of  all  the 
gifts  and  virtues,  the  apostle  gives  a  more  explicit 
answer  (verses  8-12).  She  is  the  enduring  virtue. 
Prophecy,  ecstatic  utterance,  and  knowledge  (in  the 
limited  forms  of  it  which  alone  are  possible  to  men 
here)  serve  but  the  temporal  well-being  of  the  Church, 
and  must  therefore  pass  away.  Our  present  knowledge 
is  like  that  of  childhood,  which  is  lost  in  the  mature 
mental  growth  of  the  man  (verse  11);  our  present  ap- 
prehension of  truth  falls  as  far  short  of  the  full  reality 
as  the  imperfect  reflection  of  an  object  in  a  metallic 
mirror  fails  to  reproduce  the  exact  likeness  of  the  thing 
itself  (verse  12) ;  the  forms  of  thought  in  which  we 
hold  truth  resemble  dark  -sayings  (cf.  ev  alvfyfjMTi, 
verse  12),  since  they  cannot  fully  and  clearly  present 
to  the  mind  the  truth  with  which  they  deal.  This 
knowledge,  then,  with  its  limitations  and  distortions, 

20 


806  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

must  pass  away,  but  love  suffers  no  change ;  it  con- 
tinues the  same  in  its  nature ;  it  is  the  virtue  which 
includes  all  others. 

But  other  graces  also  abide ;  faith  and  hope  are  as  last- 
ing as  love.  Yet  she  is  greater  than  these  (verse  13). 
The  apostle  leaves  the  reason  for  her  superiority  over 
them  to  be  inferred.  This  superiority  is  probably  due 
to  the  fact  that  love  is  the  quality  which  gives  their 
value  to  both  faith  and  hope.  Love  is  therefore  the 
absolutely  fundamental  virtue.  It  forms  indeed  the 
essence  of  all  types  of  excellence  ;  it  is  the  principle 
of  all  goodness,  the  "bond  of  perfectness"  (o-ufgeo-^o? 
T*7<?  reXetoTi/ro?,  Col.  iii.  14),  the  virtue  which  unites 
and  unifies  all  others.  Love  is  thus  seen  to  be  the 
most  comprehensive  virtue.  Faith  and  hope  designate, 
in  comparison,  but  single  phases  of  our  relation  to 
God  and  his  truth,  and  therefore  represent  but  par- 
tially the  significance  of  the  religious  life  ;  but  love  is 
the  principle  of  moral  completeness,  embracing  in  its 
scope  our  duties  and  obligations  to  God  and  to  man. 
The  idea  may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  apostle's 
language  —  and  is  certainly  correct  in  itself  —  that 
while  faith  and  hope  relate  more  to  the  religious  life 
of  the  individual,  love  embraces  the  interests  of  the 
whole  community.1 

While  this  demonstration  of  the  activities  and  pre- 
eminence of  love  is  introduced  for  a  practical  purpose, 
it  has  most  important  bearings  upon  the  Pauline 
theology.  It  shows  how  wholly  inseparable  are  true 

1  So  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol.  §  93  b. 


THE   CHRISTIAN   LIFE  307 

faith  and  love,  and  that  faith  is  a  most  fundamental 
condition  of  a  right  religious  character.  The  faith 
which  the  apostle  mentions  in  xiii.  2  is  a  courageous 
and  heroic  confidence,  not  evangelical  or  saving  faith. 
Such  faith,  excellent  as  it  is  in  itself,  would  be  morally 
valueless  without  love.  The  faith,  therefore,  which  is 
morally  valuable  must  have  love  as  its  basis  and  in- 
spiration. Again,  when  the  apostle  says  that  love 
believes  all  things  (jrdvra  Trio-revet,  verse  7),  he  im- 
plies, as  Bishop  Ellicott  remarks,  that  love  is  the  sus- 
taining power  of  faith;1  and  surely  in  making  love 
greater  than  faith,  though  both  abide  forever  together, 
he  shows  how  far  he  is  from  regarding  true  faith  as  a 
formal  assent  or  holding  of  things  for  true,  or  even  as 
a  mere  passive  trust  in  another's  merit.  No  faith  is 
saving  which  does  not  appropriate  Christ's  Spirit  and 
lead  the  heart  to  consecration  and  obedience  and  all 
the  powers  to  action  and  service.  Faith  is  indeed  a 
great  word  in  Paul's  teaching  ;  as  a  contrast  to  works 
it  assumes,  however,  a  relative  prominence  in  the 
polemic  portions  of  his  theology,  which  is  far  greater 
than  belongs  to  it  when  his  teaching  is  regarded  solely 
in  its  positive  content  and  is  considered  apart  from 
the  refutation  of  Judaizing  theories.  In  this  view  it 
is  not  faith,  but  love  which  is  the  greatest  word  in 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Christian  life,  —  greatest  be- 
cause most  fundamental  and  most  inclusive  of  all  that 
God  requires  of  man. 
It  is  not  included  in  our  present  purpose  to  follow 

1  Commentary  on  1  Cor.,  in  loco. 


308  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

out  in  detail  the  mode  of  treatment  which  is  applied 
by  the  apostle  to  the  various  practical  subjects  with 
which  he  deals  in  his  epistles,  since  we  are  concerned 
rather  with  the  formative  principles  of  his  system  and 
their  rational  connection  with  each  other  than  with 
his  application  of  them  to  concrete  questions.  It  may 
be  well,  however,  to  note  a  few  of  the  leading  themes 
which  he  has  thus  treated  and  to  trace  the  outlines  of 
his  views  respecting  them.  One  of  these  is  the  duty 
of  the  Christian  to  the  State  (Rom.  xiii.  1-7).  Paul 
had  as  little  occasion  to  consider  the  merits  or  defects 
of  the  then  existing  governments  as  he  had  to  discuss 
the  propriety  of  slavery,  which  was  an  institution  of 
society  in  his  time  whose  right  to  exist  no  one  thought 
of  calling  in  question.  The  apostle  regards  the  State 
as  of  divine  origin  and  authority.  It  is  ordained  of 
God  for  the  reproof  and  punishment  of  evil-doers,  to 
whom  alone  it  gives  occasion  for  fear.  It  has  a  right 
to  punish  (verse  4)  ;  within  what  limits  the  apostle 
does  not  consider.  It  has  the  right  to  exact  tribute 
from  its  citizens  (verse  6)  ;  to  resist  it  is  to  "  with- 
stand the  ordinance  of  God  "  (verse  2).  It  is  obvious 
that  the  apostle  has  attempted  no  philosophy  of  the 
State  in  these  few  verses.  The  problems  of  Political 
Science  were  not  before  his  mind.  He  urged  upon 
the  attention  of  his  readers  only  those  particular 
truths  which  suited  his  practical  purpose.  He  pro- 
tests against  that  lawlessness  which  was  liable  to 
spring  from  a  perversion  of  his  own  doctrine  of  the 
freedom  of  the  Christian  man.  He  reminds  them 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  309 

that  the  State  is  a  providential  necessity,  and  that  its 
right  to  preserve  order,  punish  crimes,  and  receive 
loyal  support  is  a  divinely  given  right,  and  that  those 
who  deem  themselves  at  liberty  to  renounce  their 
allegiance  to  the  regularly  constituted  civil  authorities 
will  justly  suffer  the  penalty  of  their  sin.  It  is  obvious 
that  such  topics  as  the7  limits  of  obedience  and  the 
right  of  resistance,  under  certain  conditions,  to  the 
State,  were  not  at  all  the  subjects  of  the  apostle's 
recorded  reflections. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  examples  of  Paul's 
handling  of  a  perplexing  ethical  question  is  seen  in 
his  treatment  of  the  "  cases  of  conscience  "  relating  to 
the  eating  of  various  kinds  of  food.  This  question 
arose  in  churches  where  there  were  persons  of  Jewish 
education  who  were  affected  with  scruples  in  respect 
to  "  unclean "  meats,  as  was  apparently  the  case  at 
Rome  (see  Rom.  xiv.).  In  such  instances,  the  ques- 
tion would  be  whether  those  who  had  no  scruples  in 
respect  to  certain  kinds  of  food  should  refrain  from 
their  use  out  of  regard  to  the  scrupulous.  In  Rom. 
xiv.  the  apostle  treats  the  matter  in  somewhat  general 
terms,  his  main  principles  being,  (a)  that  Christians 
who  differ  on  such  points  should  not  harshly  judge 
one  another.  Since  God  has  accepted  both,  they 
should  be  tolerant  of  one  another's  differences  in  such 
matters  (verses  3,  4).  (5)  Christ  is  the  judge  of  all ; 
it  is  not  the  prerogative  of  one  Christian  to  judge 
another  (verses  10-12).  (c)  It  is  the  dictate  of  love 
diligently  to  refrain  from  courses  of  action  which  create 


310  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

moral  hindrances  for  other  Christians.  To  the  apostle 
all  meats  were  clean  and  might  be  eaten ;  but  one 
might  seriously  harm  and  hinder  a  Jewish  Christian 
of  different  views  by  always  acting  upon  that  principle. 
Therefore  the  rights  of  liberty  should  sometimes  yield 
to  the  obligations  of  love  (verses  13-15).  (d)  Above 
all  things,  peace  is  to  be  sought,  and  if  by  concession, 
even  to  an  unfounded  scruple,  the  Christian  life  of 
others  can  be  promoted,  it  is  the  part  of  benevolence 
to  make  the  concession  in  such  matters  as  are  in 
themselves  morally  indifferent  (verses  16-21). 

But  it  was  in  the  Church  at  Corinth  that  this  ques- 
tion confronted  the  apostle  in  its  most  peculiar  and 
perplexing  form  (see  1  Cor.  viii.  and  x.  23-xi.  1). 
There  it  arose,  not  from  Jewish  scruples,  but  from 
the  perplexity  in  which  the  Gentile  converts  found 
themselves  in  respect  to  the  right  to  eat  of  the  meat 
of  animals  which  had  been  killed  in  idol-sacrifice. 
A  Christian  could  not  partake  of  an  idolatrous  sacri- 
ficial meal  without  defilement  and  sin.  But  this  meat 
was  frequently  offered  for  sale  in  the  shops,  and  might 
be  either  wittingly  or  unwittingly  bought  and  eaten. 
Was  it  in  such  cases  to  be  eaten  by  those  who  knew 
its  former  associations  ?  The  Corinthians  had  been 
accustomed  before  their  conversion  to  regard  the  gods 
to  whom  they  offered  sacrifice  as  real  beings  possessed 
of  superhuman  attributes.  Under  the  power  of  this 
idea  they  questioned,  after  they  became  Christians, 
whether  the  idol-worship,  which  they  now  regarded  as 
sacrilegious,  did  not  pollute  the  meat  of  animals  which 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  311 

were  killed  in  sacrifice  at  the  idol's  altar.  Many  did 
not  feel  at  liberty  to  eat  of  such  meat;  others  had 
no  hesitation.  The  problem  was  how  the  "strong" — 
that  is,  those  who  had  no  scruple — ought  to  act  in 
view  of  the  doubts  and  fears  of  the  "  weak,"  or  scru- 
pulous. It  was  therefore  not  so  much  a  question  re- 
garding the  convictions  of  a  certain  class,  the  "  weak 
brethren,"  as  it  was  a  question  how  to  act  in  view  of 
their  want  of  positive  convictions  ;  how  to  treat  their 
perplexity  so  as  not  to  encourage  them  to  do  what 
their  consciences  were  not  yet  clear  that  they  had  a 
right  to  do. 

Paul's  principles  in  the  handling  of  this  subject  are  : 
(a)  that  love,  rather  than  knowledge,  is  the  supreme 
law  which  must  regulate  the  Christian's  action.  One 
may  know,  as  the  apostle  did,  that  meat  cannot  be 
denied  by  connection  with  idol-worship,  and  yet,  in 
certain  conditions,  he  may  be  required  by  love  to 
refrain  from  acting  upon  his  abstract  right  to  eat  it 
(1  Cor.  viii.  1-3).  (6)  It  is  obviously  absurd  to  sup- 
pose that  an  idol  can  defile  meat,  because  the  being 
which  it  is  supposed  to  represent  has  no  existence,  or 
at  any  rate  no  such  character  and  power  as  the  heathen 
religion  ascribed  to  it  (verses  4-6  ;  <rf.  x.  20).  (c)  But 
all  persons  cannot  rise  to  this  conception.  The  ques- 
tion arises  how  their  scruples,  based  upon  inherited 
religious  ideas,  shall  be  treated  (verse  7).  (d)  The 
apostle  explains  that  it  is  not  a  question  of  absolute 
right  or  wrong,  but  only  of  right  or  wrong  so  far  as 
one's  course  might  affect  the  action  and  conscience  of 


312  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

an  uninstructed  class  (verse  8).  (e)  Always  to  insist 
upon  the  rights  of  "  knowledge  "  in  such  cases,  might  be 
contrary  to  love.  If  a  "  strong  "  man  should  partake  of 
a  heathen  sacrificial  meal,  his  action  might  easily  lead 
the  "  weak  "  man  to  do  the  same.  In  thus  eating,  the 
"weak"  man  acts  in  doubt,  and  thus  violates  his  con- 
science by  doing  what  he  is  not  clear  that  he  is  morally 
at  liberty  to  do.  He  thereby  suffers  a  moral  injury 
which  may  begin  the  work  of  destruction  (verses  9-11). 
(/)  Hence  the  apostle  declares  that  in  such  cases  it  is 
the  part  of  Christian  duty  to  refrain  from  the  exercise 
of  the  abstract  rights  of  Christian  liberty  (verses  12, 
13).  In  another  passage  he  takes  up  the  case,  which 
might  occur  in  a  private  house,  where  there  are  both 
"  weak  "  and  "  strong"  persons  present.  Meat  of  the 
kind  described  may  be  on  the  table.  The  general  prin- 
ciple is,  Institute  no  inquiry  on  grounds  of  conscience 
as  to  the  food  offered  (x.  25-27).  But  in  case  some 
scrupulous  person,  from  conscientious  hesitation  as  to 
his  right  to  eat  of  it,  calls  your  attention  to  its  char- 
acter, then  you  should  refrain  for  his  sake  (verses 
28,  29), —  not,  indeed,  because  he  asks  or  expects  such 
a  concession,  but  because  he  may  follow  your  example 
without  seeing  that  he  has  a  clear  right  to  do  so,  and 
thus  do  violence  to  his  conscience  and  inflict  a  grave 
moral  injury  upon  himself. 

It  should  be  noticed  that  the  concessions  which  Paul 
recommends  are  to  be  made  from  benevolent  motives. 
They  are  accommodations  to  an  unfortunate  weakness 
which  is  to  be  remedied,  as  soon  as  possible,  by  in- 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  313 

struction.  The  concessions  must,  in  the  nature  of  the 
case,  be  spontaneous  on  the  part  of  the  one  who  makes 
them,  and  unsought  by  the  weak  brother.  If  they  were 
demanded,  they  would  not  be  due,  because  in  that  case 
the  one  who  should  ask  them  would  be  no  longer  "  weak  " 
or  perplexed,  but  "  strong  "  and  positive.  The  obliga- 
tions of  Christian  charity  are  for  Paul  weightier  than 
the  rights  of  Christian  liberty.  His  tender  treatment 
of  such  scruples  of  conscience  reveal  a  deep  trait  in 
the  character  of  the  man  who  was  the  bold  champion 
of  liberty  when  concessions  were  asked  in  the  name  of 
unfounded  prejudice,  and  especially  when  such  conces- 
sions in  any  way  compromised  the  principles  of  the 
gospel  (see  Gal.  ii.  3 ;  cf.  Gal.  ii.  11  sq.). 

The  apostle's  counsels  regarding  unity  and  harmony 
in  the  church  are  most  fully  given  in  the  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthian  Church,  which  was  divided  into  rival 
and  envious  factions.  This  church  had  separated  into 
parties  according  to  the  preferences  of  its  members 
for  different  Christian  teachers.  Some  called  them- 
selves after  Paul,  who  had  founded  the  church ;  others 
took  the  name  of  Apollos,  the  eloquent  and  rhetorical 
Alexandrian  (Acts  xviii.  24-xix.  1),  whose  philosophical 
mode  of  presenting  Christian  truth  had  doubtless  cap^ 
tivated  many  ;  others,  knowing  the  eminence  of  Peter 
among  the  primitive  apostles,  made  his  name  their 
party  watchword;  and  still  others,  disavowing  alle- 
giance to  any  and  all  of  these  merely  human  teachers, 
—  but  with  a  no  less  factious  spirit,  —  declared,  "  We 
are  Christ's  "  (1  Cor.  i.  12). 


314  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

At  the  mention  of  these  divisions,  the  apostle 
seems  to  fasten  his  attention  chiefly  upon  the  charac- 
teristic differences  between  his  own  preaching  and 
that  of  Apollos,  and  without  in  the  least  condoning 
the  folly  of  those  who  had  used  his  name  as  a  party- 
sign,  enters  upon  an  explanation  of  the  true  Christian 
teaching  and  the  right  method  of  presenting  it.  Chris- 
tianity, with  its  central  doctrine  of  the  cross,  —  salva- 
tion through  sacrifice  and  suffering,  —  runs  counter  to 
the  ethical  "  wisdom  "  of  the  Greek  schools  ;  and  its 
truths  are  not  to  be  presented  in  the  rhetorical  and 
speculative  methods  of  those  schools.  Thus  Paul's 
mind  is  led  on  from  the  consideration  of  this  practical 
difficulty  at  Corinth  until  it  mounts  up  to  some  of  his 
greatest  thoughts  regarding  the  nature  and  appropria- 
tion of  salvation  (1  Cor.  i.  18-ii.  16). 

After  these  striking  generalizations,  the  apostle 
turns  again  to  the  state  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  and 
shows  them  that  in  their  party  rivalries  they  are  be- 
having like  carnal  men  in  whom  the  Spirit  has  not  yet 
obtained  control  (iii.  1-3),  and  reminds  them  that 
since  all  workers  in  God's  kingdom  are  alike  power- 
less in  themselves  to  effect  results,  which  can  be  ac- 
complished only  by  the  one  Lord  whom  they  all  serve, 
they  cannot  be  rivals,  and  must  not  be  followed  in  a 
spirit  of  rivalry  (verses  4-9).  Then  by  the  figure  of 
a  building,  composed,  indeed,  of  various  materials,  but 
harmonious  in  plan  and  structure,  he  pictures  at  once 
the  true  unity  of  the  Church  and  emphasizes  the 
variety  of  the  elements  of  strength  and  beauty  which 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  315 

each  teacher  may  by  his  instruction  contribute  to  it 
(verses  10-15) ;  and  again,  by  the  figure  of  a  temple, 
he  depicts  the  sacredness  of  the  Church,  to  mar  whose 
harmony  is  sacrilege  (verses  16, 17).  In  a  final  para- 
graph he  points  out  the  wicked  folly  and  self-deception 
of  those  who  in  a  false  conceit  of  wisdom  foster  this 
party-spirit  (verses  18-20),  and  then,  turning  to  the 
benefits  to  be  derived  from  cherishing  the  opposite 
temper,  the  thought  of  the  Christian's  right  to  all  the 
help  which  the  various  teachers  can  afford  him,  seizes 
his  mind  and  carries  his  imagination  up  to  the  great 
idea  of  the  Christian's  possession  of  all  things,  —  the 
world,  because  Christ  gives  the  key  to  its  right  mean- 
ing and  true  use  ;  life,  which  the  Christian  spirit  fills 
with  new  sweetness  and  inspiration ;  death,  because 
Christ  is  its  conqueror,  and  has  made  it  but  the  gate- 
way into  his  eternal  joy;  things  present  and  things  to 
come,  which  open  to  the  soul  a  limitless  sphere  for 
growth  and  for  service  (verses  21-23). 

We  have  traced  the  main  thread  of  thought  in 
these  chapters,  not  only  because  they  illustrate  impor- 
tant conceptions  as  to  what  the  Church's  life  should 
be,  but  because  they  show  from  what  a  lofty  point 
of  view  Paul  regarded  practical  questions.  In  the 
factious  temper  which  was  rife  at  Corinth,  the  apostle 
saw  a  radically  defective  appreciation  of  the  very 
nature  of  the  gospel.  The  cure  for  such  disorders 
was  to  be  found  in  a  true  appreciation  of  what  reli- 
gion is.  He  will  reprove  their  quarrelsome  temper 
by  taking  them  to  the  loftiest  heights  of  Christian 


316  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

contemplation,  where  they  may  see  those  greatest 
truths,  —  salvation  by  sacrifice,  true  happiness  attain- 
able only  by  an  inner  spiritual  development,  and  the 
possible  possession  of  all  things  for  one  who  has  a 
knowledge  of  their  right  meaning  and  use,  and  who 
can  make  them  subserve  the  true  ends  of  his  being. 
One  further  subject  may  be  touched  upon  which 
illustrates  the  apostle's  method  of  handling  prac- 
tical subjects,  and  reveals  certain  peculiarities  of  view 
which  are  connected  with  the  conditions  of  his  time. 
He  treats  of  marriage  and  divorce  (1  Cor.  vii.)  with  a 
certain  diffidence,  alleging  more  than  once  in  the 
course  of  the  discussion  that  he  is  rather  speaking  in 
the  way  of  concession  or  advice  than  giving  authorita- 
tive commands  (1  Cor.  vii.  6,  12,  25,  26,  40).  Paul 
himself  prefers  and  recommends  the  unmarried  state 
(vii.  1,  7,  8).  The  principal  ground  for  this  pref- 
erence is  the  "  impending  distress  "  (77  eVecrrwo-a 
avdyKrj,  vii.  26)  which  is  to  precede  the  parousia,  and 
which  will  bring  special  sufferings  to  the  married. 
Connected  with  this  reason  is  the  present  and  increas- 
ing demand  for  peculiar  labors  and  hardships  in  the 
cause  of  Christ,  which  can  be  better  met  by  the  un- 
married by  reason  of  their  comparative  freedom  from 
care  (vii.  32,  33).  This  advice  is  thus  seen  to  be 
based  upon  reasons  of  Christian  expediency  as  the 
apostle  saw  them,  and  not  upon  any  inherent  objec- 
tions to  the  married  state  or  any  superior  holiness  in 
celibacy.  He  clearly  implies  that  one  does  not  sin 
who  disregards  this  advice  (cf.  vii.  28,  36,  38).  It  ia 


THE  CHRISTIAN  LIFE  317 

his  opinion  that  in  view  of  the  nearness  of  the  con- 
summation, changes  in  such  relations  as  those  of 
family  and  social  life  should  not  be  made  (vii.  20- 
23,  27). 

It  follows  from  this  position,  as  well  as  from  his 
knowledge  of  the  teaching  of  Christ  on  the  subject 
(cf.  vii.  12),  that  Paul  was  opposed  to  divorce  (vii.  10, 
11).  But  there  was  one  situation  (no  doubt  an  actual 
one  in  some  instances  at  Corinth)  in  which  he  would 
concede  its  advisability.  That  situation  was,  where 
one  of  the  partners,  being  a  heathen,  refused  to  live  on 
peaceably  with  the  Christian  party  (vii.  15).  If,  in  cases 
of  such  differences  in  religion,  the  parties  can  agree 
to  dwell  together,  they  should  by  all  means  do  so  (vii. 
12-14),  but  where  the  non-Christian  partner  departs 
and  so  morally  sunders  the  marriage-bond,  the  Chris- 
tian member  may  acquiesce  in  his  departure.  Whether 
in  such  cases  the  Christian  party  would  be  regarded 
by  Paul  as  free  to  marry  again  is  not  wholly  clear. 
His  general  preference,  for  the  reasons  given,  that 
Christians  should  not  enter  upon  new  relations,  most 
naturally  suggests  a  negative  answer  to  this  question. 
Moreover,  in  a  purely  legal  view  of  the  matter,  the 
right  of  re-marriage  in  such  cases  would  probably  be 
excluded  so  long  as  the  other  party  lived  (vii.  39),  and 
even  then  religious  considerations  would  dictate  the 
rule  that  Christians  should  not  intermarry  with  the 
heathen  (vii.  39),  while  expediency,  as  Paul  interprets 
it,  would  favor  remaining  single  (vii.  40). 

The  point  of  chief  interest  in  Paul's  handling  of  the 


318       THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

subject  is  found  in  the  combination  of  considerations 
drawn  from  the  peculiar  conditions  of  his  time,  and 
especially  from  his  parousia-expectation,  with  the 
universal  principles  which  are  applicable  to  the  sub- 
ject in  hand.  If  the  argument  shows  the  apostle's 
limitations  of  knowledge  and  his  imperfect  interpre- 
tation of  expediency,  it  also  shows  that  he  was  con- 
scious of  his  limitations  and  clearly  distinguished 
between  his  opinions  on  such  subjects  and  the  essen- 
tial truths  and  principles  of  the  gospel,  which  he 
taught  with  the  full  confidence  of  their  divine  au- 
thority. If,  on  the  one  hand,  his  limitations  of  view 
show  him  to  have  been  a  genuine  man  of  his  time,  it 
is  equally  certain  that,  on  the  other,  his  consciousness 
of  them  and  his  refusal  to  place  his  personal  counsels 
touching  such  practical  subjects  as  marriage  and 
divorce  upon  a  level  with  the  essential  truths  of  the 
gospel  which  he  had  received,  lift  him  again  im- 
measurably above  his  age,  and  remain  among  the 
most  conspicuous  marks  of  his  real  greatness. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   DOCTRINE   OF   THE   CHURCH 

THE  phrase,  the  kingdom  of  God,  so  constantly 
used  by  the  Founder  of  Christianity  as  a  designation 
of  the  community  of  believers,  is  not  frequently 
employed  by  the  apostle  Paul.  The  two  meanings  of 
the  expression  which  are  commonest  in  Paul's  writ- 
ings are :  (a)  that  in  which  it  stands  as  a  name  for  the 
principles  or  truths  of  Jesus'  teaching,  as  in  Rom.  xiv. 
17,  "  The  kingdom  of  God  is  not  eating  and  drink- 
ing, but  righteousness  and  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (cf.  I  Cor.  iv.  20);  (6)  the  reign  of  God  in  the 
perfected  society  of  the  future  world,  —  the  prevail- 
ing meaning  with  Paul,  and  most  frequently  associated 
with  the  word  "  inherit,"  as  in  1  Cor.  vi.  9,  "  The  un- 
righteous shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God " 
(<?/.  xv.  50  ;  Gal.  v.  21 ;  2  Thess.  i.  5).  It  is  unques- 
tionable that  Paul  commonly  uses  the  term  in  an 
eschatological  sense,  and  that  we  must  seek  his  teach- 
ing regarding  the  organization  and  characteristics  of 
Christian  society  as  it  exists  in  the  present  age,  in 
connection  with  other  terms.  The  most  important  of 
these  is  the  word  "church"  (e/c/cX^o-i'a),  which  occurs 


320  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

more  than  sixty  times  in  his  epistles,  and  in  a  consid- 
erable variety  of  meanings. 

Paul  most  frequently  means  by  "  church  "  an  assem- 
bly of  believers  who  meet  in  a  particular  place  for 
Christian  worship,  as  in  1  Cor.  xi.  18,  "  When  ye 
come  together  in  the  church  [or  congregation] ,"  and 
in  1  Cor.  xvi.  19,  "  the  church  that  is  in  their  house  " 
(17  /car'  oitcov  etcK\y<Tia) ,  cf.  Rom.  xvi.  5;  Col.  iv.  15. 
Ordinarily  this  assembly  includes  the  Christians  of 
any  given  town  or  city,  as  "  the  church  which  is  at 
Corinth,"  1  Cor.  i.  2,  "  the  church  of  the  Thessalo- 
nians,"  1  Thess.  i.  1,  etc.  But  in  many  passages  the 
term  has  a  wider  meaning,  and  denotes  the  whole 
community  of  believers,  as  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  "  And 
God  hath  set  some  in  the  church,  first  apostles,"  etc. 
cf.  x.  32 ;  xv.  9 ;  Gal.  i.  13,  —  the  use  of  the  term 
which  is  most  important  for  our  present  purpose. 

It  appears,  then,  that  in  Paul's  use  of  words,  the 
Church,  in  its  broadest  meaning,  is  the  present  col- 
lective community  of  Christians,  and  that  the  King- 
dom of  God  is  the  society  of  believers  as  it  shall  be  in 
the  coming  age  of  Messianic  blessedness.  The  Church 
and  the  Kingdom  of  God  are  separated  by  the  parousia 
and  its  attendant  events,  which  mark  the  close  of  the 
present  world-period  (aliav  ovros,  6  vvv  aliav,  Gal.  i.  4  ; 
1  Cor.  iii.  18 ;  Titus  ii.  12)  and  introduce  the  Mes- 
sianic age  (al(t>i>  fj,e\\a)v,  Eph.  i.  21,  cf.  Heb.  vi.  5). 
There  is,  therefore,  in  the  language  of  Paul  no  basis 
for  such  a  distinction  as  that  between  the  Church  mili- 
tant and  the  Church  triumphant,  since  the  Church 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  321 

designates  an  organization  or  collection  of  organiza- 
tions, which  exist  only  in  this  pre-Messianic  period,  and 
which  do  not  survive  the  transition  from  this  age  to 
the  coming  one.  At  the  second  advent  the  Kingdom 
of  God  will  be  ushered  in,  and  the  Church  as  such  will 
pass  away,  because  its  ideal  will  have  been  attained. 
It  would  not,  therefore,  be  un-Pauline  to  say  that  the 
Church  is  the  organization  of  Christians  which  here 
and  now  imperfectly  represents  the  Kingdom  of  God 
on  earth.  Their  relation  is  like  that  of  the  respective 
ages  (alwves)  to  which  they  belong.  The  Church  exists 
in  an  evil  age  (Gal.  i.  4 ;  2  Thess.  ii.  3  »g.)  and  must 
therefore  partake  of  human  imperfection  and  sin ;  the 
Kingdom  of  God  will  be  the  reign  of  the  divine  law  of 
love  which  Christ  shall  institute  at  his  coming,  —  the 
perfected  theocracy.  Their  relation  is  analogous  to 
that  of  the  Old  Testament  civil  polity  to  the  spiritual 
commonwealth  of  Jesus.  From  the  definition  of  their 
relation  it  is  seen  that  the  conception  of  the  Kingdom 
of  God  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  eschatology ;  that  of 
the  Church,  the  present  society  and  fellowship  of 
Christians,  is  a  distinct  subject,  and  demands  separate 
treatment. 

The  Church  is  a  unit  under  the  lordship  of  Christ. 
This  thought  is  most  fully  developed  in  First  Corin- 
thians, where  the  apostle  sets  it  in  contrast  with  the 
party-spirit  which  prevailed  at  Corinth,  and  in  Ephe- 
sians,  where  it  is  introduced  as  a  corollary  of  the 
supreme  headship  of  Christ  over  the  Church.  The 
unity  and  harmony  of  all  Christians  in  the  Church  are 

21 


322  THE  PAULINE   THEOLOGY 

illustrated  by  various  figures.  One  of  the  most  com- 
mon is  that  of  the  members  as  constituting  one  body : 
"  We,  who  are  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ,  and  sev- 
erally members  one  of  another  "  (Rom.  xii.  5) ;  "  For 
as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all 
the  members  of  the  body,  being  many,  are  one  body ; 
so  also  is  Christ"  (1  Cor.  xii.  12);  that  is,  "just  as 
the  case  stands  with  the  body,  that  its  many  members 
make  up  its  unity,  so  also  does  it  stand  in  like  manner 
with  Christ,  whose  many  members  likewise  constitute 
the  unity  of  his  body  "  (Meyer  in  loco).  In  Ephesians 
the  headship  of  Christ  over  the  Church  as  his  body  is 
yet  more  explicitly  asserted  in  contrast  to  modes  of 
thought  which  degraded  Christ  from  his  pre-eminent 
position,  and  which  had  become  rife  in  the  churches  in 
Asia  Minor,  although  the  apostle  does  not  here  draw 
out  the  practical  lessons  regarding  the  function  of 
each  member  of  the  body  which  are  so  fully  de- 
veloped in  1  Cor.  xii.  12-31.  Here  it  is  a  doctrinal 
interest  regarding  the  nature  and  dignity  of  Christ's 
person,  while  there  it  was  a  practical  concern  for  the 
harmony  and  peace  of  the  Corinthian  Church,  which 
determined  the  course  of  his  thought.  It  is  the  divine 
purpose  "  to  sum  up  all  things  in  Christ ; "  that  is,  to 
unite  all  things  under  one  head  (dvaKe<f>a\ai(i)(rao-6ai), 
in  union  with  Christ  (Eph.  i.  10).  Christ  is  the  uni- 
fying bond  of  all  saving  powers  and  processes.  God 
"  hath  put  all  things  under  his  feet,  and  gave  him  to  be 
head  over  all  things  to  the  Church,  which  is  his  body  " 
(i.  22).  It  results  from  Christ's  position  and  work 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  323 

that  mankind,  who  were  before  divided  into  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  are  now  united  into  one  body  by  the  recon- 
ciliation which  Christ  has  accomplished  by  his  death 
(ii.  16).  It  follows  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Christian 
man  to  fulfil  the  function  of  a  member  of  Christ,  and 
so  to  promote  the  strong  and  healthy  growth  of  the 
body  (iv.  16 ;  Col.  ii.  19),  or,  disregarding  the  figure,  to 
grow  in  likeness  to  Christ,  to  approach  ever  nearer  to 
the  standard  of  his  perfectness  (Eph.  iv.  13, 15). 

Another  favorite  representation  of  the  symmetry 
and  unity  of  the  Church  compares  it  to  a  temple  or 
other  building.  Christians  together  constitute  a  sa- 
cred sanctuary  of  God  (z>ao?),  whose  defilement  by 
jealousy  and  strife  is  a  grievous  sin  (1  Cor.  iii.  16, 17). 
This  figure  is  used  to  emphasize  the  guilt  of  all  con- 
formity to  heathen  customs,  and  of  marriage  with 
unbelievers.  Such  conduct  is  like  the  association  of 
God's  temple  with  idol-shrines  (2  Cor.  vi.  14-18). 
Again,  Christians  constitute  God's  building  (ot/coSo/i^), 
of  which  Christ  is  the  foundation  (1  Cor.  iii.  9),  or 
"chief  corner-stone"  (Eph.  ii.  20),  and  whose  several 
parts  being  adjusted,  each  to  its  own  place  and  use, 
grow  into  a  temple  hallowed  by  the  indwelling  of  the 
Lord,  —  a  house  wherein  God  may  dwell  by  the  pres- 
ence of  his  Spirit  (Eph.  ii.  21,  22).  The  Church  is 
also  represented  as  God's  tilled  field  (0eoO  yea)pyiov, 
1  Cor.  iii.  9),  in  which  different  laborers  should  culti- 
vate and  irrigate  the  soil  without  disparagement  or 
jealousy  of  one  another,  remembering  that  it  is  not 
they  but  God  who  produces  the  harvest  (iii.  6-9). 


324  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

The  various  offices  which  belong  to  the  Church  at 
large  the  apostle  has  enumerated  in  two  passages. 
They  are  "  first  apostles,  secondly  prophets,  thirdly 
teachers  "  (1  Cor.  xii.  28),  or,  according  to  the  fuller 
list  in  Eph.  iv.  11,  apostles,  prophets,  evangelists, 
pastors  and  teachers.  This  enumeration  is  not  made 
for  the  purpose  of  defining  or  emphasizing  the  vari- 
ous functions  thus  represented,  but  for  the  practical 
purpose  of  illustrating  the  diversities  of  gift  and  of- 
fice which  meet  and  harmonize  in  the  essential  unity 
of  the  Church.  That  the  list  represents,  not  so  much 
different  church  offices  as  various  functions  and  en- 
dowments, is  shown  by  the  way  in  which  the  list  is 
continued  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  "  then  miracles,  then 
gifts  of  healings,  helps,  governments,  divers  kinds  of 
tongues."  In  the  local  churches  there  were  in  Paul's 
time  two  well-defined  offices,  —  that  of  bishops  or  pres- 
byters, and  that  of  deacons  (Phil.  i.  1),  —  although 
it  seems  clear  that  not  all  the  Pauline  churches  were 
thus  officered  from  the  first.  There  is  no  trace,  for 
example,  of  official  leaders  in  either  the  Galatian  or 
the  Corinthian  churches ;  the  fact  that  none  are  in 
any  way  held  responsible  for  the  disorders  of  these 
churches,  as  well  as  the  very  nature  of  some  of  the 
disorders,  such  as  those  that  occurred  at  the  Lord's 
Supper  (see,  for  example,  1  Cor.  xi.  20,  21,  33)  would 
indicate  a  lack  of  organization  in  the  case  of  these 
communities.1  In  the  Church  at  large,  however,  there 
were  no  offices,  in  the  common  meaning  of  that  term. 
1  Cf.  Weiss,  Bib.  Theol  §  92  d. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH  325 

The  apostles  were  men  especially  commissioned  by 
Christ  to  found  and  foster  churches,  and  they  left  no 
successors.  The  terms  "  prophets,  teachers,  and 
evangelists  "  do  not  imply  functions  which  can  be  ab- 
solutely separated  from  one  another.  The  "  prophet " 
was  an  instructed  and  divinely  enlightened  teacher 
who  interpreted  spiritual  truth  to  the  churches. 
The  evangelists  were  preachers  who  went  from  place 
to  place,  and  might  be  officers  in  some  local  church, 
as  in  the  case  of  Philip  the  deacon  (Acts  xxi.  8). 
The  prophet  and  the  evangelist  were  also  teachers, 
although  these  terms  ordinarily  denoted  persons  who, 
in  an  individual  church  by  reason  of  special  fit- 
ness, gave  instruction  in  Christian  truth,  and  who 
would  generally,  if  not  always,  belong  to  the  col- 
lege of  elders  or  pastors  who  were  chosen  out  of 
the  congregation  to  be  its  official  representatives 
in  instruction  and  government  (cf.  Meyer  on  Eph. 
iv.  11). 

The  various  spiritual  powers  with  which  the  Apos- 
tolic Church  was  endowed  are  more  distinctly  de- 
scribed, although  this  description  is  given,  not  for 
purposes  of  definition,  but  as  a  basis  of  exhortation 
to  unity  of  spirit.  The  most  prominent  of  these 
charismata  are  the  gift  of  tongues  and  of  their  inter- 
pretation, the  gift  of  miracle-working,  of  discerning 
spirits,  and  of  prophecy  (1  Cor.  xii.  10,  30).  The 
first  of  these  was  an  ecstatic  mode  of  speech  which 
was  unintelligible  to  the  hearers  (xiv.  2),  and  which, 
therefore,  needed  to  be  interpreted  either  by  the 


326  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

speaker  or  by  another  (xiv.  5, 13,  27,  28).  "  Work- 
ings of  miracles "  designate  effects  which  proceed 
from  acts  of  power  (cf.  Swa/teis,  xii.  29),  and  which 
presuppose  for  their  performance  special  faith, — 
such  an  unshaken  confidence  as  is  referred  to  in 
1  Cor.  xiii.  2,  "  If  I  have  all  faith,  so  as  to  remove 
mountains."  By  the  "  discernings  of  spirits "  is 
meant  judgments  as  to  the  source  from  which  that 
which  is  said  in  the  assembly  proceeds,  whether  from 
the  Holy  Spirit  or  from  human  or  even  demoniac 
spirits  (cf.  1  Tim.  iv.  1 ;  1  John  iv.  1).  Prophecy 
or  preaching,  the  gift  of  clear,  luminous  exposition  of 
Christian  truth  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
was  the  endowment  which  Paul  most  highly  prized,  and 
deemed  most  serviceable  to  the  Church  (1  Cor.  xiv. 
1-5,  24,  25).  Other  charismata  are  more  incidentally 
alluded  to,  such  as  "the  word  of  wisdom"  (\oyo<? 
<ro<f>ia<;~)  and  "  the  word  of  knowledge  "  (Xoyo?  71/06- 
<re&)9, 1  Cor.  xii.  8),  —  terms  which  are  not  easily  de- 
fined and  distinguished,  but  which  refer,  no  doubt,  tc 
the  enunciation  and  apprehension  of  those  deep 
truths  and  mysteries,  such  as  the  sacrifice  of  Christ 
(1  Cor.  i.  22-24),  that  constitute  the  true  Christian 
wisdom  which  may  be  taught  to  those  of  spiritual 
maturity  (1  Cor.  ii.  6),  but  which  the  worldly  and 
carnal  mind  cannot  receive  (ii.  14).  Paul  mentions 
also  "helps"  (avrtX^et?),  which  most  naturally  re- 
fers to  the  duties  of  the  diaconate,  and  "  govern- 
ments" (fevfiepvija-eis,  1  Cor.  xii.  28),  which  is  best 
understood  as  the  counterpart  of  "  helps,"  and  would 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH    327 

therefore  designate  the  functions  of  government  which 
are  exercised  in  the  local  church  by  the  elders  or 
bishops. 

When  we  turn  from  the  organization  of  the  Church 
and  the  diversity  of  gifts  represented  in  it,  to  consider 
its  relation  to  society,  we  must  remember  that  the 
expectation  of  the  speedy  return  of  Christ  to  judg- 
ment, which  was  universal  in  the  Apostolic  Age,1 
operated  as  a  powerful  motive  to  discourage  changes 
in  the  social  order.  We  have  seen  how  Paul  applied 
this  motive  to  the  subject  of  marriage  (1  Cor.  vii.  26- 
31).  The  trials  and  sufferings  which  will  precede 
the  approaching  parousia  make  it  desirable  that  no 
change  of  social  conditions  or  relations  be  made,  but 
that  "  each  abide  in  that  calling  wherein  he  was 
called  "  (1  Cor.  vii.  20)  ;  that  is,  continue  in  the  con- 
dition in  which  the  call  of  God  found  him.  If  he  was 
a  Jew  when  converted,  let  him  not  seek  to  efface  the 
marks  of  his  Judaism  ;  if  a  Gentile,  let  him  not  be- 
come a  Jew  (vii.  18) ;  if  one  was  a  bond-servant  when 
called,  let  him  be  content  to  remain  such  (vii.  21),  for 
bond  and  free  are  on  the  same  level  before  Christ ; 
both  are  Christ's  freemen  as  those  whom  he  has  de- 
livered from  their  sins,  and  both  are  his  bondmen  as 
being  obligated  to  his  service  (vii.  22) ;  that  is,  in 
Christ's  service  the  true  bondage  to  truth  and  duty  is 
coincident  with  the  highest  freedom. 

1  Cf.  Prof.  G.  P.  Fisher  on  "  The  New  Testament  Writings 
on  the  Time  of  the  Second  Advent "  in  The  Nature  and  Method 
of  Revelation,  p.  221  sq. 


328  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

It  is  obvious  from  these  considerations  that  even  if 
there  had  been  in  that  age  any  occasion  to  raise  the 
question  as  to  the  justice  and  continuance  of  slavery, 
no  such  upheaval  of  society  as  would  have  been  in- 
volved in  its  abolition  would  have  seemed  justified  to 
the  apostle's  mind.  The  conditions  of  the  time,  how- 
ever, were  not  such  as  to  give  rise  to  this  question. 
Slavery  was  an  institution  of  both  Jewish  and  Gentile 
society  in  which  all  acquiesced,  and  whose  ultimate 
discontinuance  could  only  be  the  result  of  a  prolonged 
social  development.  A  proclamation  against  it  by  the 
apostles  would  have  been  as  premature  and  futile  as  it 
would  have  been  unnatural.  The  immediate  and 
practical  duty  of  the  Christian  teacher  was  to  counsel 
faithful  fulfilment  of  the  duties  involved  in  social  rela- 
tions as  then  existing  (Eph.  vi.  5-9).  To  have  done 
otherwise  would  have  been  to  recommend  a  revolution 
which  would,  in  fact,  have  been  unsuccessful,  and 
which,  had  it  succeeded,  would  have  been  disastrous 
in  its  effect  upon  society.  A  recent  writer,  treating 
of  "  Paul  and  Social  Gradations,"  raises  the  question, 
what  would  have  been  the  result  if  Christianity  had 
proclaimed  in  Paul's  time  the  emancipation  of  all 
slaves,  and  answers  thus :  — 

"  Doubtless  it  would  have  instantaneously  added  to 
the  numerical  strength  of  Christianity ;  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  would  immediately  have  been  taken  by  violence. 
And  so  would  the  kingdoms  of  earth.  It  is  impossible  to 
conceive  a  more  perfect  picture  of  anarchy  than  would 
have  been  created  by  a  sudden  and  successful  insurreo- 


THE  DOCTRINE  OP  THE  CHURCH  329 

tion  of  the  slave  population.  The  numerical  proportion 
of  the  bound  to  the  unbound  in  the  Roman  empire  is  a 
matter  of  dispute;  probably  the  bound  outnumbered  the 
free.  Figure  anything  approaching  to  such  a  proportion, 
and  then  to  the  quantity  add  the  quality.  Consider  that 
the  slave  population  represented  at  its  worst  that  state 
which  we  designate  by  the  name  of  Paganism,  —  a  name 
which  embraces  as  its  leading  characteristic  the  predomi- 
nance of  the  sensuous  over  the  spiritual.  It  was  Pagan- 
ism without  its  restraints  and  without  its  refinements. 
What  would  have  been  the  effect  of  the  emancipation  of 
these  millions,  —  the  emancipation  of  an  un-Christianized, 
un-humanized  horde,  impelled  by  the  fanaticism  of  a 
new  watchword,  accomplished  in  a  moment  of  time,  and 
achieved  by  a  stroke  of  violence?  Could  it  have  any 
other  result  than  one,  —  the  transformation  of  order  into 
anarchy,  the  uprooting  of  that  line  of  civilization  on 
which  Christianity  itself  had  begun  to  move  ?  "  l 

In  regard  to  the  relation  of  the  sexes  we  may  ob- 
serve, in  addition  to  what  has  been  said  regarding 
marriage  and  divorce,  that  the  apostle  considers  the 
distinction  of  sex  to  be  annulled  in  Christ  in  so  far 
as  both  male  and  female  are  alike  dependent  upon 
him  (Gal.  iii.  28).  In  respect  of  religious  equality 
there  is  no  dependence  of  woman  upon  man.  Even 
in  the  natural  relations  there  is  a  certain  *eciprocal 
dependence,  since  it  is  not  only  true  that  woman  was 
made  from  man,  but  that  man  is  born  of  woman 
(1  Cor.  xi.  11, 12).  But  neither  this  religious  equal- 

1  Matheson,  Spiritual  Development  of  Saint  Paul,  pp.  291,  292. 


330        THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ity  nor  this  natural  derivation  of  each  sex  from  the 
other,  annuls  the  social  difference  and  the  dependence 
of  woman  upon  man  as  her  "  head,"  —  a  relation 
analogous  to  the  dependence  of  the  Church  upon 
Christ  as  her  "  head  "  (Eph.  v.  23 ;  cf.  1  Cor.  xi.  3). 

The  woman  is  to  be  veiled  in  public  assemblies  as 
a  sign  of  this  dependence  (1  Cor.  xi.  5).  For  the 
same  reason  she  should  wear  her  hair  long,  because 
Nature  has  given  it  to  her  as  a  kind  of  natural  veil 
(xi.  15).  It  is  therefore  a  violation  of  natural  mod- 
esty and  decorum  for  a  woman  to  appear  in  public 
without  these  signs  of  her  natural  dependence  upon 
man  (xi.  6).  These  proprieties  are  based  upon  the 
divine  order  of  creation  (Gen.  ii.  18-22),  according  to 
which  the  apostle  considers  that  a  certain  precedence 
is  accorded  man  in  the  direct  impartation  to  him  of 
lordly  authority,  while  the  glory  which  God  imparted 
to  mankind  in  creation  appears  only  indirectly  and, 
as  it  were,  by  reflection,  in  woman,  who  was  not  cre- 
ated directly  by  God,  but  mediately  from  man.  In 
1  Tim.  ii.  14,  the  secondary  place  of  woman  is  ascribed 
not  alone  to  her  later  and  mediate  creation,  but  to 
her  earlier  yielding  to  temptation  (Gen.  iii.  6).  It  is 
noticeable  that  the  apostle's  view  regarding  the  de- 
pendent position  of  woman  in  her  relation  to  man 
rests  upon  a  literal  interpretation  of  the  narratives 
of  the  creation  and  fall  in  Genesis,  and  upon  the 
separate  and  far-reaching  significance  of  its  various 
details. 

From  this  general  view  of  woman's  dependence  the 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH          331 

apostle  draws  certain  practical  conclusions  respecting 
her  place  and  conduct  in  the  Church.  He  particu- 
larly forbids  her  speaking  or  teaching  in  the  public 
assemblies  of  the  Church  (1  Cor.  xiv.  34 ;  1  Tim.  ii. 
12).  This  prohibition  he  grounds  upon  a  natural 
propriety  which  has  its  basis  in  the  later  creation,  the 
earlier  transgression,  and  the  divinely  appointed  de- 
pendence of  woman  (1  Cor.  xiv.  35  ;  1  Tim.  ii.  12). 
Not  only  is  she  precluded  from  public  teaching  in  the 
assembly ;  she  may  not  even  speak  in  the  way  of  ask- 
ing questions.  If  she  wishes  instruction  in  regard  to 
the  subjects  which  are  considered  in  the  Church,  she 
must  ask  her  husband  at  home  (1  Cor.  xiv.  35),  in- 
stead of  propounding  her  questions  in  public.  In 
speaking  of  the  impropriety  of  women  praying  or 
prophesying  in  the  congregation  without  a  veil  (1  Cor. 
xi.  5,  13),  the  apostle  cannot  have  intended  to  indi- 
cate that  they  might  do  so  if  veiled,  since  he  is  not 
dealing  with  the  proper  way  of  woman's  appearing  in 
public,  but  with  the  obvious  impropriety  of  the  mode 
of  appearance  described.  The  requirement  to  appear 
in  the  assembly  with  veiled  head  would,  probably,  in 
itself  preclude,  by  its  very  significance,  the  public 
speaking  in  question  ;  but,  in  any  case,  the  apostle's 
attitude  toward  it  is  made  unmistakably  clear  by  his 
direct  and  emphatic  prohibition  of  it  in  a  later  chap- 
ter (xiv.  34,  35). 

The  ordinances  of  the  Apostolic  Church  were  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper.  The  former  was  the 
symbol  of  the  believer's  entrance  into  union  with 


332  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

Christ ;  the  latter  the  memorial  of  his  sacrificial  death 
and  the  sign  and  pledge  of  the  believer's  participation 
in  his  life.  The  Christian  is  baptized  into  the  name 
of  Christ  (cf.  1  Cor.  i.  13-16)  ;  that  is,  enters  into 
that  personal  relation  to  Christ  which  is  denoted  by 
taking  upon  him  Christ's  name,  so  that  he  may  be 
said  to  have  put  on  Christ  (Gal.  iii.  27)  as  a  garment. 
Baptism  into  Christ  (et?  Xpia-rov)  thus  denotes  the  en- 
trance into  spiritual  relation  to  Christ,  a  mystic  union 
with  him  in  which  he  becomes  the  life-element  of  the 
soul.  It  is  involved  in  this  conception  that  baptism 
denotes  the  renunciation  of  the  former  sinful  life. 
Continuance  in  sin  is  inconsistent  with  the  very  idea 
of  baptism,  since  it  symbolizes  an  ethical  death  to  sin 
and  life  to  righteousness  (Rom.  vi.  1-7).  Here  we 
meet  the  peculiar  Pauline  representation  by  which 
baptism  is  treated  as  a  moral  death  and  burial  to  sin, 
analogous  to,  or  rather  mystically  identical  with, 
Christ's  death  and  burial.  This  form  of  thought  is 
discussed  at  length  in  another  chapter  (pp.  34-36), 
to  which  I  refer  the  reader.  It  is  probable  that  the 
immersion  of  the  body  in  water  suggested  to  the 
apostle's  mind  the  analogy  between  the  moral  signifi- 
cance of  the  rite  and  those  saving  acts  of  Christ  — 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  —  which  were  the 
ground  of  that  ethical  transformation  which  baptism 
symbolized.  The  object  of  the  apostle  in  the  passage 
is  not  to  teach  anything  concerning  the  mystical 
significance  of  the  form  of  baptism,  but  to  urge  that 
«  the  very  idea  of  baptism  —  as  denoting  participation 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH    333 

in  the  saving  work  of  Christ  and  life-union  with 
him  —  implies  and  demands  a  life  of  righteousness 
as  opposed  to  continuance  in  sin.  Baptism  betokens 
a  moral  death  to  sin  and  a  moral  renewal  in  righteous- 
ness, —  a  process  which  has  its  ground  in  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  is  not  the  form  of  bap- 
tism which  is  said  to  typify  Christ's  death,  but  it  is 
the  process  of  moral  renewal  (proclaimed  in  baptism) 
which  is  so  represented.  Baptism  is  nowhere  said  to 
typify  or  picture  forth  Christ's  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection.  It  typifies  that  moral  renewal  of  the 
believer  which  is  figuratively  called  a  death  and  res- 
urrection (Rom.  vi.  4;  Col.  ii.  12),  and  which  Paul 
mystically  identifies  with  Christ's  death  and  resurrec- 
tion, its  cause  and  ground.  But,  it  may  be  said,  if 
baptism  typifies  spiritual  renewal,  and  this  renewal  is 
identified  with  Christ's  death,  does  it  not  therefore 
typify  Christ's  death  ?  The  answer  is  that  the  identi- 
fication spoken  of  is  a  mystical  identification  of  events 
widely  separated  in  time,  and  that  while  one  may 
carry  out  Paul's  mysticism  to  this  extent,  he  has  not 
himself  done  so.  That  Paul  attached  special  signifi- 
cance to  submersion  as  typifying  Christ's  burial,  is  an 
inference  which  disregards  the  peculiar  mysticism  by 
which  the  significance  of  baptism  is  associated  with 
Christ's  death  and  burial,  and  overlooks  the  fact 
that  the  relation  of  baptism  to  regeneration  (ethical 
"  death  ")  is  wholly  different  from  that  of  regenera- 
tion to  Christ's  death.  It  is  the  fallacy  of  the  argu- 
ment, A  =  B,  and  B  =  C ;  therefore  A  =  C,  when 


334  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

A  does  not  equal  B  in  the  same  sense  as  B  equals  C. 
Baptism  typifies  moral  renewal,  and  moral  renewal  is 
grounded  in  Christ's  death  ;  it  does  not  follow  that 
baptism  typifies  Christ's  death.1 

It  is  not  probable  that  the  baptism  of  infant  chil- 
dren was  practised  in  Paul's  time,  or  that  the  subject 
of  its  grounds  or  propriety  was  ever  considered  by 
him.  In  the  early  years  of  the  Church's  life  there 
would  be  no  occasion  to  raise  the  question  whether 
the  children  of  believers  were  also  proper  subjects  of 
baptism,  since  Christianity  of  course  addressed  itself 
to  adults.  In  the  absence  of  explicit  instruction  on 
the  subject,  the  Church  could  only  raise  this  question 
—  as  it  could  only  raise  the  question  of  exclusive  Sun- 
day observance  —  at  a  later  stage  of  religious  thought 
and  life.  It  has  been  too  confidently  assumed  that 
the  references  to  the  baptism  of  households  (Acts  xvi. 
15 ;  1  Cor.  i.  16)  imply  the  baptism  of  young  children, 
since  there  is  no  intimation  that  those  families  con- 
tained infants.  The  statement  in  1  Cor.  vii.  14  that 
the  children  of  parents  one  of  whom  is  a  Christian 
are  "  holy  "  has  been  thought  to  imply  their  right  to 
baptism ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  apostle  could  not 

1  Rom.  vi.  3,  where  Paul  speaks  of  baptism  into  Christ's  death, 
is  no  exception  to  this  statement.  The  context  shows  that  his 
meaning  is,  Our  baptism  expresses  our  new  moral  relation  to 
Christ's  death  ;  its  whole  significance  is  that  we  ethically  partici- 
pate in  its  benefits,  which  implies  the  cessation  of  the  sinful  life. 
Paul  is  emphasizing  the  moral  significance  of  the  believer's  initia- 
tion into  the  Christian  community  as  implying  that  inner  renewal 
of  life  which  is  the  effect  of  Christ's  death. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH     33£ 

have  thought  of  such  a  bearing  of  his  statement,  since 
in  the  immediate  connection  he  affirms  that  "  the  un- 
believing husband  is  sanctified  in  the  wife,  and  the 
unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  in  the  brother."  The 
believing  partner  "  sanctifies  "  not  only  the  children 
of  the  union,  but  the  unbelieving  partner  also.  More- 
over, the  fact  that  Paul  designates  children  as  "holy," 
not  in  consequence  of  a  sacred  rite,  but  solely  by  vir- 
tue of  their  Christian  parentage,  indirectly  testifies 
against  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  in  his  time. 
It  determines  nothing,  however,  as  to  the  bearing  upon 
the  subject  of  his  underlying  idea  of  the  family. 

The  oldest  tradition  concerning  the  institution  and 
significance  of  the  Lord's  Supper  (/cvpia/cbv  SeiTrvov) 
is  that  which  Paul  has  preserved  to  us  (1  Cor.  xi.  23- 
25).  It  represents  the  Lord  as  taking  bread,  and 
giving  thanks,  and  saying,  "  This  is  my  body,  which  is 
for  you,"  and,  in  like  manner,  taking  the  cup  of  wine, 
and  saying,  "  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my 
blood :  this  do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance 
of  me."  That  the  bread  and  wine  were  thought  of  in 
the  language  of  institution  as  symbols  of  Christ's  body 
and  blood  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  was  bodily 
present  with  those  to  whom  he  spoke  the  words,  and  any 
other  sense  of  the  words  would  have  been  absolutely 
unintelligible.1  The  idea  that  the  language  implies 
a  miraculous  transformation  of  the  elements  of  bread 
and  wine  into  Christ's  veritable  body  and  blood,  or 

1  Cf.  Meyer  in  loco ;  Neander,  Planting  and  Training,  Bohn 
ed.  i.  497;  Am.  ed.  p.  454. 


336  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

the  equally  miraculous  presence  in  these  elements  of 
two  substances,  is  a  development  of  sacramentarian 
theology,  whose  rise  was  due,  not  to  the  passages 
which  it  learned  to  interpret  with  unnatural  literal- 
ness,  but  to  a  certain  method  of  religious  thought. 

The  symbolism  of  the  ordinance  which  points  pri- 
marily to  the  sacrificial  death  of  Christ,  as  well  as  the 
explanation  of  its  purpose  which  the  apostle  appends 
in  verse  26,  shows  that  the  supper  was  to  him  a  per- 
petual sign  and  confession  of  the  benefits  conferred 
by  the  Lord's  redemptive  work.  The  institution  was 
to  be  a  memorial  of  the  Saviour,  and  more  especially 
of  his  sufferings  and  death,  until  he  should  personally 
return  to  consummate  his  communion  with  his  disci- 
ples by  his  immediate  presence.  But  the  observance 
is  not  only  regarded  as  an  act  of  remembrance,  but 
also  as  an  act  of  communion  (icoivwvia}.  Partaking  of 
the  bread  and  wine  involves  participation  with  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  (1  Cor.  x.  16)  ;  that  is,  with 
the  remembrance  of  Christ's  sufferings  for  the  parti- 
cipant is  joined  the  consciousness  of  communion  with 
him  and  of  being  the  recipient  of  the  saving  benefits 
of  his  death.  That  this  "  communion  "  with  Christ's 
body,  and  blood  is  thought  of,  not  as  material,  but  as 
realized  in  the  consciousness  of  the  believer's  fellow- 
ship with  Christ,  is  evident  from  the  considerations 
mentioned  above  in  connection  with  xi.  23  sq. 

The  apostle  also  regards  the  supper  as  a  sign  of  the 
spiritual  unity  of  all  believers  in  Christ.  "  We  who 
are  many  are  one  bread,  one  body,"  or,  as  the  verse 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CHURCH          337 

may  (I  think  more  properly)  be  translated,  "  Because 
there  is  one  bread,  we,  the  many,  are  one  body ;  for 
we  all  partake  of  the  one  bread  "  l  (1  Cor.  x.  17).  The 
common  symbol  of  which  all  partake  suggests  the 
common  participation  of  all  in  those  gracious  benefits 
which  are  symbolized,  and  thus  designates  the  unity 
of  the  participants. 

Among  the  Corinthians,  to  whom  Paul  wrote  on 
this  subject,  great  abuses  of  the  sacred  feast  had 
arisen.  The  memorial  supper  was  observed,  as  uni- 
versally in  the  Apostolic  Church,  in  connection  with 
the  agape,  or  love-feast,  —  a  common  meal  to  which  the 
various  members  of  the  community  contributed.  But 
on  coming  together,  the  richer  members  of  the  con- 
gregation proceeded  at  once  to  devour  what  they  had 
brought,  and  left  those  who  had  brought  little  or  no 
supply  with  an  insufficient  meal.  The  result  was  that 
some  remained  hungry,  while  the  well-supplied  par- 
took to  excess,  especially  of  the  wine  which  they  had 
brought  (xi.  21).  He  reminds  them  that  under  such 
conditions  there  can  be  no  proper  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  (xi.  20),  and  having  rehearsed  the  cir- 
cumstances of  its  origin,  in  order  to  show  them  how 
incongruous  was  their  conduct  with  its  whole  idea 
and  purpose,  he  warns  them  against  a  desecration  of 
the  sacred  festival  by  reminding  them  that  whoever 
participates  in  it  unworthily  —  that  is,  without  an 

1  So  Meyer,  Heinrici.  Others  render  in  the  form  of  a  com- 
parison, "  As  the  bread  is  one,  so  we,  the  many,  are  one  body," 
etc.  So  Conybeare  and  Howson,  De  Wette,  Neander. 

22 


338  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

appreciation  of  its  sacred  character  and  use  —  is  guilty 
of  sacrilegious  treatment  of  the  Lord's  body  and  blood 
(xi.  27).  In  view  of  the  danger  of  this  great  sin  to 
which  his  readers  were  so  peculiarly  liable,  he  advises 
them  to  put  themselves  to  the  test,  whether  they  are 
partaking  with  serious  thoughts  and  in  accord  with 
the  sacred  purpose  of  the  institution,  and  urges  them 
to  partake  in  the  consciousness  of  the  fact  that  by 
this  test  it  is  determined  whether  their  partaking  is  a 
source  of  blessing  or  an  act  of  sin  (verse  28).  Accord- 
ing to  this  criterion  he  that  eats  and  drinks  (avaguos  in 
verse  29  is  certainly  spurious)  draws  down  a  divine 
judgment  upon  himself  if,  in  so  doing,  he  does  not 
"  discern  the  body ;  "  that  is,  if  he  is  not  conscious  of 
the  sacredness  of  the  symbols  of  which  he  partakes, — 
if  with  a  profane  or  thoughtless  disposition  he  takes 
the  memorials  of  Christ's  sacrifice  (verse  29).  To  this 
profanation  of  the  ordinance  the  apostle  traces  the  sick- 
ness and  death  of  many  in  the  Corinthian  congrega- 
tion (verse  30).  He  warns  them  to  submit  their  moral 
condition  to  the  test  proposed  (verse  28)  when  they 
approach  the  sacred  meal,  and  to  refrain  from  those 
excesses  from  which  their  unworthy  participation  has 
resulted,  by  waiting  for  one  another  at  the  agape,  or 
by  eating  in  advance  at  home,  that  they  may  not 
further  expose  themselves  by  such  impiety  to  the 
divine  displeasure  (verses  31-34). 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE    PAULINE    ESCHATOLOGY 

No  part  of  the  apostle's  teaching  is  developed  with 
so  little  of  systematic  fulness  as  the  doctrine  of  the 
future  life.  Upon  the  subject  of  the  resurrection  he 
wrote  at  some  length  (1  Cor.  xv.),  in  order  to  remove 
the  objections  and  difficulties  which  existed  in  the 
Greek  mind  in  regard  to  it.  He  has  expressed  him- 
self somewhat  fully,  especially  in  his  earlier  epistles, 
upon  the  hope  of  the  Lord's  return  to  earth,  but  in 
the  later  letters  this  theme  recedes  into  the  back- 
ground. Upon  no  other  topics  of  eschatology  has  he 
dwelt  at  length.  His  statements  are  rather  incidental, 
but  are  not  on  that  account  less  important  as  a  guide 
to  his  general  conception  of  the  nature  and  progress 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  of  the  consummation  of 
human  history. 

Salvation  is  to  Paul  both  a  present  and  a  future 
fact.  At  justification  there  commences  a  new  life 
which  continues  to  grow  and  strengthen  under  the 
power  of  the  Spirit ;  but  in  this  life  the  blessed  reali- 
zation of  salvation  is  but  begun.  With  the  experi- 
ence of  God's  redeeming  mercy  there  always  mingles 


340  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

a  large  element  of  hope.  The  full  fruition  of  redemp- 
tion will  be  enjoyed  only  in  the  immediate  presence 
of  Christ. 

Redemption  has  two  sides  or  relations,  —  that  which 
looks  toward  the  former  sinful  state,  and  which  is 
represented  by  such  words  as  salvation  (a-corripia)  and 
forgiveness  (a$eo-t<?),  and  that  which  looks  forward  to 
the  future,  and  is  best  represented  by  the  term  life 
(farf).  The  formal,  juridical  side  of  Paul's  theology 
is  more  immediately  connected  with  this  negative 
aspect  of  salvation ;  his  doctrine  of  the  life  of  faith 
and  love  illustrates  more  its  positive  side.  The  doc- 
trine of  justification  answers  the  question,  How  can 
man  be  delivered  from  the  burden  of  his  sins  and  be- 
come the  object  of  the  divine  favor  ?  The  doctrine  of 
the  Christian  life  answers  the  question,  How  can  man 
more  and  more  attain  that  Christlikeness  of  char- 
acter whose  complete  possession  is  the  goal  of  his 
existence  ?  The  Pauline  eschatology  is,  in  the  main, 
a  following  out  of  this  question.  But  this  teaching 
has  also  its  negative  side.  It  treats  of  the  deliverance 
of  the  spiritual  element  of  the  personality  from  the 
corruptible  flesh ;  but  the  main  stress  is  laid  upon  the 
positive  completion  of  salvation  in  the  bestowment  of 
glorified  bodies  suited  to  the  new  conditions  which 
shall  surround  the  soul  in  the  future  life,  and  in  the 
glorification  and  perfection  of  the  whole  personality 
after  the  image  of  Christ. 

The  great  transformation  which  Paul's  views  of  the 
future  life  underwent  in  his  passing  from  Pharisaism 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  341 

to  Christianity  is  apparent  when  we  contrast  the 
Jewish  view  of  death  as  the  greatest  of  misfortunes, 
with  Paul's  conception  of  it  as  a  departure  to  be  with 
Christ,  which  is  better  than  continued  life  (Phil.  i.  23) ; 
or  when  we  compare  the  Jews'  belief  in  Sheol  —  a 
gloomy  realm  of  shadows  and  forgetfulness  —  with 
Paul's  hope  of  a  bright,  happy,  conscious  life,  ensuing 
directly  upon  death  (2  Cor.  v.  6-8).  On  the  ground 
of  the  narrative  of  the  Fall  in  Genesis  (iii.  3  «^.), 
Paul  regards  physical  death  as  the  penalty  of  sin. 
He  cannot,  indeed,  have  supposed  that,  had  sin  never 
entered  the  world,  there  would  have  been  no  change 
corresponding  to  what  is  called  death.  —  that  is,  a  dis- 
solution of  the  material  body,  —  since  it  is  a  funda- 
mental principle  with  him  that  fleshly  bodies  cannot 
enter  the  future  spiritual  kingdom  (1  Cor.  xv.  50).  We 
are  led  to  suppose  that,  but  for  sin,  there  would  have 
been  some  transformation  of  men's  fleshly  bodies, 
without  those  accompaniments  of  sickness  and  pain 
which  are  always  associated  with  "  death,"  by  which 
they  would  have  been  delivered  from  their  perishable, 
corruptible  elements,  and  made  fit  to  "  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God."  Death,  therefore,  considered  as 
the  penalty  of  sin,  is  not  merely  the  dissolution  of  the 
earthly  body  as  such,  but  carries  with  it  those  asso- 
ciations of  weakness,  disease,  and  corruption  which 
have  always  invested  with  terrors  the  name  of  death. 
How,  now,  does  the  work  of  redemption  affect  this 
bitter  consequence  of  sin  ?  It  does  not  abolish  it ; 
the  reign  of  death  continues.  Nor  does  it  rob  it  of 


342  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

those  accompaniments  to  which  we  have  referred,  and 
make  it  what  it  would  have  been  if  sin  had  never 
entered  the  world.  Despite  the  work  of  Christ,  death 
remains  with  all  its  train  of  physical  evils,  even  for 
the  subjects  of  salvation.  The  natural  consequences 
of  sin  are  not  averted  by  redemption. 

In  what  sense,  then,  can  Paul  hold  that  Christ  has 
"abolished  death"  (2  Tim.  i.  10)?  He  has  done 
so  by  securing  to  the  believer  the  certainty  that 
death  shall  have  no  further  dominion  over  him  after 
his  experience  of  it  here.  It  shall  not  hold  him  under 
its  power  in  the  world  to  come,  where  he  shall  forth- 
with enter  into  life.  The  sting  of  death,  which  is  sin 
(1  Cor.  xv.  56),  is  taken  away,  because  sin  cannot 
pursue  the  believer  into  the  future  world,  there  to 
inflict  upon  him  death  and  its  attendant  evils.  Christ 
is  victor  over  death  because  at  last  the  soul  in  his 
immediate  presence  is  delivered  from  the  power  of 
sin  and  is  placed  beyond  the  reach  of  death,  —  sin's 
consequence. 

In  accord  with  this  conception  of  death  as  power- 
less to  hold  or  harm  the  soul  after  its  separation  from 
this  body,  the  apostle  is  fond  of  speaking  of  death  as 
a  sleep.  Christ  is  the  "firstfruits"  (the  pledge  and 
promise  of  resurrection),  "  of  them  that  are  asleep  " 
(1  Cor.  xv.  20) ;  "  for  if  we  believe  that  Jesus  died 
and  rose  again,  even  so  them  also  which  are  fallen 
asleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with  him "  (1  Thess. 
iv.  14 ;  cf.  1  Cor.  vii.  39  ;  xi.  30 ;  xv.  6, 18,  51).  To 
understand  this  expression  literally  as  designating  an 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  343 

actual  sleep  of  the  soul,  a  state  of  unconsciousness 
between  death  and  the  resurrection,  is  clearly  incon- 
sistent with  several  passages  where  Paul  presupposes 
an  immediate  entrance  at  death  upon  a  conscious,  joy- 
ous communion  with  the  Lord  (2  Cor.  v.  8 ;  Phil.  i. 
23).1  The  expression  must  be  understood  as  an 
euphemism  for  death,  and  as  denoting  the  blessed 
rest  in  fellowship  with  Jesus  into  which  his  followers 
enter  at  death.  The  realization  of  the  completed 
salvation  for  the  individual  is  thus  described  as  the 
disarming  of  death  of  its  terrors  by  the  assured  cer- 
tainty of  an  entrance  into  a  blessed  life  with  Christ, 
and  of  being  provided  with  a  spiritual  embodiment 
for  the  soul  which  shall  never  experience  death  or 
corruption. 

Greater  difficulties  arise  when  it  is  sought  to  define 
Paul's  conception  of  the  consummation  of  the  king- 
dom of  redemption  as  a  whole,  and  to  trace  the  order 
of  events  by  which  it  is  to  be  accomplished,  and  the 
relation  of  the  individual  thereto.  The  second  coming 

1  Usteri  (Paulinischer  Lehrbegriff,  p.  349)  supposes  that  Paul's 
earlier  thought  was  that  the  dead  in  Christ  slept  between  death 
and  the  parousia,  but  that  as  this  event  receded  into  a  more  un- 
certain distance,  he  developed  the  hope  of  their  immediate  partici- 
pation at  death  in  conscious  fellowship  with  Christ.  This  opinion 
involves  the  supposition  of  a  very  ra'dical  transformation  of  his 
ideas  on  the  subject  in  the  few  months  intervening  between  the 
•writing  of  1  and  2  Corinthians  (cf.  1  Cor.  xv.  6,  18,  20,  etc.,  with 
2  Cor.  v.  8), —  an  assumption  wholly  destitute  of  proof  and  in  itself 
quite  unnatural.  Sabatier  (L'Apotre  Paul,  p.  155  sq. ;  Eng.  tr. 
p.  179  sq.~)  draws  a  fanciful  picture  of  this  supposed  transformation 
in  the  apostle's  view  of  the  future. 


344        THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

of  Christ  furnishes  the  starting-point  for  this  phase 
of  his  teaching.  It  is  necessary  to  consider  his  views 
upon  three  subjects,  —  the  parousia,  the  resurrection, 
and  the  judgment  of  the  world,  —  in  order  to  define  the 
further  problems  to  which  these  views  give  rise,  and 
to  trace  the  limits  of  the  apostle's  affirmations  regard- 
ing the  last  things. 

In  common  with  the  whole  Church  in  the  Apostolic 
Age,  Paul  regarded  the  return  of  Christ  to  raise  the 
dead  and  judge  the  world  as  near  at  hand,  and  confi- 
dently hoped  for  its  occurrence  in  his  own  lifetime. 
This  expectation  seems  to  have  been  occasioned  largely 
by  the  disappointment  of  the  hopes  of  the  first  dis- 
ciples of  Jesus  —  hopes  which  were  universal  in  the 
later  Judaism  —  that  the  Messiah  would  establish  a 
great  world-empire  and  throw  from  off  the  nation  the 
yoke  of  Roman  dominion.  Since  Jesus  had  not  done 
this,  but  had  merely  proclaimed  and  founded  a  spirit- 
ual empire,  his  disciples  most  naturally  turned  their 
thoughts  toward  his  return  as  the  occasion  when  their 
disappointed  hopes  would  be  fulfilled.  His  own  teach- 
ing respecting  this  event  and  respecting  other  future 
crises  in  his  kingdom,  they  had  understood  in  the 
light  of  their  own  conception  of  the  nature  and  es- 
tablishment of  this  kingdom.  Their  inherited  ideas 
colored  their  understanding  of  his  teaching  on  these 
themes  and  influenced  the  form  of  the  tradition  of 
his  words  from  the  first.  This  influence  is  clearly 
discernible  in  our  Synoptic  Gospels,  where  he  is  fre- 
quently represented  as  teaching  that  his  second  advent 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  345 

would  occur  speedily,  and  even  in  one  instance  as 
declaring  that  it  would  ensue  immediately  upon  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  (Matt.  xxiv.  29).1 
The  non-fulfilment  of  these  definite  predictions  which 
were  attributed  to  Christ,  did  not  destroy,  though  it 
must  have  tempered,  the  hope  of  his  early  return. 
Even  those  who  no  longer  cherished  the  Jewish  con- 
ception of  the  Messianic  kingdom  as  a  great  theocracy 
with  Jerusalem  as  its  center,  still  clung  to  its  asso- 
ciated idea  of  the  impending  return  of  the  Lord.  Paul 
was  no  exception.  Naturally  this  hope  appears  most 
prominently  in  his  earlier  epistles  (1  and  2  Thess.), 
which  are,  in  effect,  specimens  of  his  missionary  teach- 
ing prior  to  the  time  when  the  great  Jewish-Christian 
controversy  convulsed  his  churches.  At  Thessalonica 
the  Christians,  ardent  in  their  hope  of  the  Lord's 
speedy  coming  as  the  result  of  Paul's  preaching  among 
them,  were  perplexed  in  regard  to  those  of  their  num- 
ber who  had  died.  Would  they  not  be  at  a  disadvan- 
tage at  the  advent  as  compared  with  those  who  should 
be  then  living  ?  Paul  replies  that  they  will  in  no 
respect  fail  of  participation  in  that  glorious  event; 
for  at  the  Lord's  coming  those  believers  who  have 
died  shall  be  raised,  and  shall  at  once  fully  share  in 
the  exaltation  to  heaven  and  the  perpetual  commu- 
nion with  Christ  into  which  his  followers  will  enter 
(1  Thess.  iv.  13-18).  The  way  in  which  the  apostle 

1  Cf.  Fisher,  on  "  The  New  Testament  Writings  on  the  Time  of 
the  Second  Advent,"  in  The  Nature  and  Method  of  Revelation, 
p.  221  sq. 


346  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

speaks  of  those  who  shall  be  living  at  the  parousia 
("  We  that  are  alive,  that  are  left  unto  the  coming 
of  the  Lord,"  verses  15,  17)  clearly  shows  that  he 
expected  to  be  of  that  number,  and  that  he  re- 
garded those  who  should  have  "  fallen  asleep  in 
Jesus"  (verse  14)  as  constituting  a  minority  of  the 
church. 

Paul  soon  found  that  from  this  hope  had  been  drawn 
unwarranted  and  dangerous  inferences.  Many  at 
Thessalonica  had  ceased  from  their  regular  employ- 
ments and  from  self-support,  in  expectation  of  the 
speedy  consummation  (2  Thess.  iii.  6-12).  In  his 
second  letter  to  them  he  seeks  to  correct  this  extrava- 
gant and  fanatical  temper.  A  letter  had  been  circu- 
lated among  them,  purporting  to  emanate  from  Paul, 
which  had  stated  that  the  day  of  the  Lord  was  on  the 
very  point  of  dawning  (Jvicrr^Kev,  ii.  2).  Paul  denies 
all  responsibility  for  such  definite  and  confident  pre- 
diction of  the  immediate  nearness  of  the  advent,  and, 
in  order  to  turn  their  minds,  in  a  measure,  to  other 
thoughts,  tells  them  that  certain  events  which  must 
precede  the  parousia  may  more  wisely  be  made  the 
object  of  their  present  expectation.  These  events  are 
connected  with  "  the  apostasy  "  (77  onToo-rao-la,  ii.  3), 
which  shall  culminate  in  a  great  development  of  evil, 
which  Paul  conceives  of  as  being  represented  by  a 
false  Messiah  who  is  called  "  the  man  of  sin,"  "  the 
son  of  perdition."  This  manifestation  of  evil  is  to  be 
within  the  sphere  of  anti-Christian  Judaism,  and  is  at 
present  held  in  check  by  the  Roman  power.  These 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  347 

evil  forces  are  gathering  themselves  for  an  outbreak 
which  will  occur  as  soon  as  the  restrainer  (6  tcare^wv, 
verse  7 ;  cf.  TO  tcarexpv,  verse  6)  is  taken  out  of  the 
way. 

From  this  whole  passage  (ii.  1-12)  —  well  named 
"  the  Pauline  Apocalypse  "  —  it  is  evident  that  Paul 
shared,  in  some  measure,  the  Jewish  idea  of  the 
dolores  Messice  (cf.  1  Cor.  vii.  26),  the  dread  sufferings 
and  portents  which  were  to  precede  and  accompany  the 
advent.1  The  passage  under  review  throws  no  doubt 
whatever  upon  Paul's  expectation  of  the  nearness  of 
the  advent.  While  he  had  not  taught  that  the  day 
was  so  near  that  its  dawn  was  on  the  point  of  break- 
ing, and  while  he  asserts  that  other  events  are  to 
be  first  expected,  he  clearly  regards  these  events  as 
harbingers  of  the  approaching  advent,  and  contem- 
plates them  all  as  near  at  hand  and  as  likely  to  occur 
within  his  own  lifetime. 

In  his  later  epistles  other  great  problems  and 
interests  absorb  his  attention,  and  the  subject  of 
the  advent  assumes  quite  a  secondary  place.  The 
hope  of  a  personal  experience  of  it  continues,  how- 
ever, to  find  occasional  expression  almost  to  the 
very  end  of  his  career.  There  is  no  just  ground  for 
the  assertion  that  Paul  underwent  a  change  of  view 
regarding  this  subject.  There  is  in  his  teaching  a 
change  of  emphasis  in  regard  to  it,  but  no  change  of 
opinion.  It  is  referred  to  in  the  second  group  of  let- 

1  Cf.  Edersheim,  The  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah, 
iL  433,  434. 


348  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

ters  (1  Cor.  i.  7,  8 ;  iv.  5 ;  xvi.  22)  and  in  the  third 
(Col.  iii.  4  ;  Phil.  iv.  5). 

The  apostle's  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  is  pre- 
sented in  a  compact  form  in  order  to  answer  the 
objections  to  it  which  were  rife  at  Corinth  (1  Cor. 
xv.).  The  certainty  of  resurrection  in  general  is 
based  upon  the  fact  of  Christ's  resurrection.  These 
two  truths  are  involved  in  each  other,  and  stand  or 
fall  together  (verses  12-19).  But  it  is  a  fact  that 
Christ  has  risen  and  become  "  the  firstfruits  [aTra/r^??] 
of  them  that  are  asleep  "  (verse  20)  ;  he  has  begun 
the  great  resurrecticn-process,  and  in  his  resurrection 
that  of  his  followers  who  have  died,  is  assured.  It 
is  only  the  certainty  of  this  fact  which  can  lend  sig- 
nificance to  the  custom  of  receiving  vicarious  baptism 
for  those  who  have  died  (verse  29),  or  justify  the 
apostles  in  subjecting  themselves  to  constant  perils 
and  labors  for  the  gospel  (verses  30-32).  But  for  the 
hope  founded  upon  Christ's  resurrection,  we  should 
easily  fall  into  moral  indifference  and  carnality  of  life 
(verses  32-34). 

The  question  then  arises  as  to  the  mode  of  the 
resurrection.  The  apostle  replies  that  it  may  be 
thought  of  after  the  analogy  of  natural  processes. 
As  the  seed-grain  which  is  sown  in  the  earth  decays, 
but  rises  again  in  the  nobler  product  of  the  new  stalk, 
so  the  perishable  body  may  have  within  itself  some 
germ  or  potency  which  becomes  the  formative  princi- 
ple of  the  resurrection-body  (verses  36-38).  This 
analogy  is  intended  to  relieve  the  difficulty  which 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  349 

was  felt  in  regard  to  the  relation  between  the  present 
and  the  future  embodiment.  To  the  Greek  mind  the 
difficulty  would  be  :  When  the  disembodied  soul  comes 
forth  from  Hades  and  enters  a  body,  whence  and  of 
what  materials  shall  that  body  be  ?  Paul's  analogy 
meets  the  problem  only  in  two  points :  (1)  the  new 
body  shall  not  be  identical  with  the  present  one,  —  the 
buried  body  resuscitated,  —  but  (2)  it  shall  be  organi- 
cally connected  with  the  present  body ;  the  conti- 
nuity of  the  personality  on  its  corporeal  side  shall 
not  be  broken. 

He  next  adduces  an  analogy  to  show  the  reason- 
ableness of  the  idea  that  in  the  future  life  men  should 
have  bodies  suited  to  their  condition  (verse  39). 
Various  orders  of  being  —  men,  beasts,  fishes  —  have 
bodies  suited  to  their  conditions  and  needs.  Why 
should  not  men  receive  such  bodies  as  befit  a  higher 
state  of  being  ?  That  there  should  be  various  kinds 
of  embodiments  for  differing  stages  of  existence 
accords  with  the  fact  that  in  the  universe  God  has 
made  a  difference  in  the  glory  of  the  material  spheres 
(verses  40,  41).  As  he  has  made  the  heavenly  bodies 
of  various  degrees  of  splendor,  so  he  may  create 
bodies  which  vary  in  their  qualities  according  to  the 
purpose  which  they  are  to  serve. 

From  these  points  of  view  he  develops  his  doctrine 
of  the  "spiritual  body"  (o-<S/*a  Trvev/jiariKov),  which 
the  soul  will  possess  in  the  spiritual  world,  as  con- 
trasted with  the  "  psychical  body  "  (<7<w//,a  i/rtr^i/eoz/), 
which  it  inhabits  here  (verse  44).  The  latter  is  ani- 


350  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

mated  by  the  sensuous  and  perishable  life  (^y^)  as 
its  determining  element ;  the  former  will  be  animated 
by  the  supersensuous  and  imperishable  life  (farf)  which 
the  Spirit  imparts  and  sustains.  The  perishable  body 
of  Adam  is  the  type  of  the  present  natural  bodies  of 
all  men  ;  the  glorified  body  of  the  risen  and  ascended 
Saviour  is  the  type  of  the  pneumatic  bodies  which 
await  the  dead  in  Christ  (verse  49).  It  is  doubtful 
whether  the  glory  (S6%a)  which  Paul  ascribes  to  the 
resurrection-body  in  contrast  to  the  "  dishonor " 
(arifjiia)  of  the  buried  body  (verse  43),  can  be  under- 
stood as  intended  to  define  the  material  of  that  body 
as  a  "  heavenly  light-substance,"  as  Weiss  holds.1 
This  term  appears  to  be  co-ordinate  with  "  incor- 
ruption  "  and  "  power,"  —  which,  taken  together, 
denote  qualities  of  the  spiritual  body  as  opposed  to 
the  "  corruption,"  "  dishonor,"  and  "  weakness,"  which 
characterize  the  psychical  body,  —  rather  than  to 
describe  its  material  or  composition  (cf.  verse  40). 

The  judgment  of  the  world  Paul  closely  associates 
with  the  parousia.  The  "  day  "  of  the  Lord's  coming 
is  the  «  day"  of  judgment  (1  Cor.  i.  8;  2  Cor.  i.  14; 
Phil.  i.  6, 10 ;  ii.  16) .  The  order  of  events  evidently  is, 
— the  advent,  the  resurrection,  the  judgment.  Many 
hold  that  according  to  Paul  there  are  to  be  two  resur- 
rections, —  the  first  that  of  believers,  and  the  second 
that  of  the  rest  of  mankind.2  This  view  is  supported 
by  appeal  to  two  passages,  1  Thess.  iv.  16, 17,  "  The 

lBib.  Theol  §  97  b. 

3  So  Bengel  and  Meyer  on  1  Cor.  xv.  24. 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  351 

Lord  himself  shall  descend  from  heaven,  etc.,  and  the 
dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first  [dvcurTijo'ovTai  Trp&Tov\  : 
then  [eVetra]  we  that  are  alive  shall  be  caught  up," 
etc.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  word  "  first " 
here  is  correlative  to  the  word  "  then "  in  the  next 
verse,  and  that  the  rising  of  the  dead  in  Christ  as  a 
first  event  is  said  to  be  followed  as  next  in  order,  not 
by  a  second  resurrection,  but  by  the  translation  to  the 
skies  of  believers  who  shall  be  living  at  the  time.  It 
is  clear,  then,  that  Paul  does  not  here  speak  of  a  first 
resurrection  as  opposed  to  a  second.  The  passage  is, 
however,  in  no  way  inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a 
second  resurrection,  and  in  the  view  of  many  critics 
naturally  gives  rise  to  the  inference  that  his  mention 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  in  Christ,  as  an  act  by 
itself,  implies  his  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  non- 
Christians  as  a  distinct  and  separate  event  (so  Ols- 
hausen,  De  Wette).  The  question  which  arises  regard- 
ing the  separate  mention  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead  in  Christ  would,  no  doubt,  disappear  if  the  view 
that  Paul  does  not  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  non- 
Christians  at  all  could  be  established  (so  Weiss). 
The  question  may  also  be  answered  by  saying  that  he 
mentions  Christians  only  because  he  was  comforting 
the  Thessalonian  Church  concerning  their  departed 
friends,  and  had  no  occasion  to  take  into  view  any 
except  believers  (so  Calvin).  This  appears  to  me  to 
be  the  most  natural  explanation  of  the  mention  of  the 
resurrection  of  believers  as  a  distinct  event,  and  as 
preceding  the  transporting  of  the  living  to  heaven, 


352  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

whatever  view  be  taken  of  the  resurrection  of  non- 
Christians,  or  a  twofold  resurrection,  on  the  ground  of 
other  passages.  The  Thessalonians  feared  that  their 
departed  friends  would  be  anticipated  by  the  living  at 
the  advent ;  that  the  living  would  earlier  and  more 
fully  enjoy  its  glory  than  the  dead.  Paul  replies,  No, 
your  departed  friends  shall  rise  first ;  that  is,  before 
the  living  enter  into  the  joy  of  perpetual  presence 
with  the  Lord.  They  shall  be  at  no  disadvantage  as 
compared  with  you  who  are  alive  at  the  time,  for  before 
you  enter  the  glory  of  the  consummation  which  shall 
begin  at  the  parousia,  they  shall  be  raised  from  the 
dead.  There  is  therefore  no  occasion  here  to  think 
or  speak  of  any  except  believers  ;  there  is,  at  any 
rate,  no  reference  here  to  two  resurrections,  as  Meyer 
(who,  on  other  grounds,  holds  the  view  of  a  double 
resurrection  to  be  Pauline)  fully  acknowledges.1 

The  principal  passage  to  which  appeal  is  made  in 
support  of  the  opinion  that  Paul  believes  in  two  res- 
urrections is  1  Cor.  xv.  23,  24,  "  Each  man  [shall 
be  raised]  in  his  own  order  [that  is,  group,  or  divi- 
sion] :  Christ  the  firstfruits  [the  first  typical  case  of 
resurrection,  and  so  the  guaranty  and  pledge  of  the 
resurrection  of  believers ;  cf.  verse  20]  ;  then  they 
that  are  Christ's,  at  his  coming.  Then  cometh  the 
end,"  etc.  "  The  end  "  (TO  reXo?)  is  understood  to 
mean  the  end  of  the  resurrection  (so  Bengel,  Meyer). 
In  this  view  there  would  be  three  divisions  of  those 
who  are  raised,  —  first,  Christ  himself,  conceived  no 
1  Commentary  on  1  Thess.  iv.  16. 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  353 

doubt  as  a  leader  (although  designated  here  "  first- 
fruits,"  in  accordance  with  a  figure  previously 
employed)  ;  then  the  believers ;  and  finally  the  non- 
Christians.  If,  however,  the  end  of  the  resurrection 
had  been  meant  by  TO  reXo9  here,  it  seems  highly 
probable  that  it  would  have  been  more  particularly 
defined.  It  is  true  that  Meyer's  interpretation  has  the 
advantage  of  giving  a  more  extended  program  of 
the  resurrection,  which  seems  to  be  contemplated  by 
the  apostle  in  such  a  beginning  of  his  description  as, 
"  Each  man  in  his  own  division."  We  naturally  ex- 
pect a  somewhat  numerous  series  of  the  rdj/jLara 
of  which  he  seems  to  be  thinking ;  but  several  in- 
stances occur  elsewhere  in  which  Paul  does  not  carry 
out  enumerations  which  his  language  seemed  to  promise 
(Rom.  i.  8  ;  iii.  2).  But  the  apostle's  conception  of 
"  the  end  "  here  appears  to  be  clearly  implied  in  what 
follows  the  expression :  "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when 
he  shall  deliver  up  the  kingdom  to  God,"  etc.  "  The 
end"  refers  to  the  time  when  Christ  shall  consum- 
mate his  kingdom,  and  put  into  subjection  all  hostile 
powers  (see  verse  28).  If  this  consummation  can  be 
shown  to  include  the  resurrection  of  non-Christians, 
the  passage  will  indeed  admit  of  adjustment  to  the 
doctrine  of  two  resurrections.  But  I  regard  it  as 
quite  certain  that  the  passage  cannot  be  made  directly 
to  support  that  opinion.  "  The  end  "  must  be  taken 
in  the  absolute  sense  as  denoting  the  end  of  the  pres- 
ent world-period,  the  goal  of  human  history  (so  Godet, 
Heinrici,  Weiss,  Edwards).  Since  no  other  passages 

23 


864  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

appear  to  support  the  Jewish  idea  of  a  twofold  resur- 
rection, we  may  conclude  either  that  Paul  had  aban- 
doned it  in  favor  of  the  idea  of  a  general  resurrection 
of  all  mankind,  or  that  he  supposed  there  was  to  be 
no  resurrection  for  unbelievers. 

If  Paul  knew  nothing  of  two  resurrections,  it  fol- 
lows that  he  could  not  have  held  the  idea  of  a  reign 
of  Christ  upon  earth  either  for  a  thousand  years  (cf. 
Rev.  xx.  1-7),  or  for  any  less  definite  period.  Paul 
was  not  a  chiliast;  and  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  two 
resurrections,  with  the  added  conception  of  an  inter- 
mediate reign  of  Christ  upon  earth,  finds  absolutely 
no  support  in  the  New  Testament  outside  of  the 
Apocalypse. 

In  regard  to  the  question  whether  Paul  believed  in  a 
resurrection  of  the  godless,  the  following  points  must 
be  remembered,  —  (a)  that  he  nowhere  speaks  in  his 
epistles  (cf.,  however,  Acts  xxiv.  15)  of  a  general  res- 
urrection of  all  mankind  ;  (5)  that  he  twice  (1  Thess. 
iv.  16 ;  1  Cor.  xv.  23)  speaks  explicitly  of  a  resurrec- 
tion of  Christians,  as  if  he  thought  of  it  as  a  distinct 
event ;  (<?)  that  his  whole  argument  for  the  fact  of  a 
resurrection  is  based  upon  Christ's  resurrection  as  its 
ground  and  guaranty ;  and  (c?)  that  the  application  of 
this  argument  is  made  to  Christians  alone.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  Paul  has  said  nothing  —  even  in  the  most 
casual  or  indirect  way  —  of  a  resurrection  of  non- 
believers.  Whether  he  held  to  such  a  resurrection 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  has  not  alluded  to  it, 
or  whether  he  has  not  alluded  to  it  because  he  did  not 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  355 

hold  it,  is  a  matter  for  conjecture.  It  cannot  fairly 
be  denied  that  the  facts  just  mentioned  make  no  ordi- 
nary case  of  an  argumentum  e  silentio.  Why,  in 
1  Cor.  xv.  23,  does  he  make  no  allusion  to  the  resur- 
rection of  others  than  Christians  when,  in  what  seems 
to  start  out  as  a  general  description  of  the  process,  he 
explicitly  mentions  that  of  those  who  are  Christ's  ? 
Would  the  argument  of  1  Cor.  xv.  avail  to  establish, 
or  even  to  render  probable,  a  resurrection  of  all  men  ? 
It  is  certainly  used  by  Paul  only  to  prove  the  resur- 
rection of  Christians.  Can  the  last  Adam  be  consid- 
ered, according  to  the  presuppositions  of  the  argument, 
as  becoming  the  life-giving  spirit  of  resurrection  (xv. 
45)  to  any  except  to  those  who  are  joined  to  him  by 
faith?  Can  the  "  all"  who,  it  is  said,  will  be  made 
alive  (xv.  22),  —  that  is,  raised  from  the  dead,  —  be 
understood  absolutely  ;  that  is,  without  respect  to 
their  union  with  Christ  through  faith  ?  As  against 
most  interpreters  (Hofmann,  Heinrici,  Edwards,  Beet, 
Godet),  Meyer  holds  that  it  should  be  so  understood. 
If  so,  the  conclusion  must  follow  that  it  is  not  life- 
union  with  Christ,  but  a  natural  relation  of  Christ  to 
all  men,  which  secures  resurrection, —  a  view  which 
would  not  only  be  at  variance  with  Rom.  viii.  11, 
where  the  indwelling  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is  de- 
clared to  be  both  the  condition  and  the  means  of  the 
quickening  of  the  mortal  body,  but  would,  in  my 
opinion,  logically  lead  to  the  conclusion  which  Ols- 
hausen,  De  Wette,  and  others  have  drawn  from  it, 
—  the  final  restoration  of  all  men.  Moreover,  the  de- 


356  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

scription  of  the  resurrection-body  is  such  as  to  show 
that  believers  only  were  thought  of.  It  is  a  pneu- 
matic body  ;  that  is,  one  animated  by  the  life-giving 
Divine  Spirit,  and  suited  to  a  holy  and  glorious  sphere 
of  existence.  If  evil  men  are  regarded  as  subjects  of 
resurrection,  what  conception  of  their  bodies  is  to  be 
entertained  ?  Paul  furnishes  no  hint  in  answer. 

But  there  is  one  consideration  which  is  regarded  as 
decisive  (see  Meyer  on  1  Cor.  xv.  24)  for  the  view 
that  Paul  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  all  men: 
All  men  are  to  be  judged  (1  Cor.  vi.  2;  xi.  32),  and 
the  judgment  presupposes  resurrection.  There  is  no 
question  that  the  resurrection  (whatever  be  its  scope) 
precedes  the  judgment ;  there  is  also  none  that  the 
world  is  to  be  the  subject  of  judgment,  although  this 
representation  is  quite  incidental  and  infrequent  with 
Paul ;  but  without  further  evidence  it  cannot  be 
proven  that  these  positions  necessarily  involve  the 
universality  of  the  resurrection.  The  considerations 
adduced  may  create  a  certain  presumption  in  its  favor, 
but  they  do  not  conclusively  prove  a  positive  opinion 
on  Paul's  part. 

We  are  led  to  the  conclusion  that  Paul  teaches 
nothing  concerning  the  resurrection  of  unbelievers. 
This  statement  does  not  mean  that  his  teaching  is  ab- 
solutely inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  such  a  resurrec- 
tion, or  that  his  language  shows  him  to  have  had  a 
positive  opinion  against  it.  The  subject  is  wholly 
outside  the  scope  of  his  doctrine.  His  arguments  are 
not  directed  toward  it,  nor  would  they  be  applicable 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  357 

to  it.  It  must  also  be  admitted  that  if  the  considera- 
tions which  Paul  has  adduced  to  support  the  fact  of 
the  resurrection  of  the  dead  are  the  only  ones  which 
are  available,  a  strong  presumption  must  arise  against 
the  resurrection  of  non-Christians,  since  such  a  resur- 
rection cannot  rest  upon  the  grounds  which  Paul  has 
alleged.  With  reference  to  Paul's  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  then,  I  regard  two  negative  conclusions 
as  well  established  by  exegesis,  —  (1)  that  he  does  not 
teach  the  Jewish  doctrine  of  two  resurrections,  and 
(2)  that  he  does  not  affirm  or  clearly  imply  any  view 
as  to  the  fact  or  manner  of  a  resurrection  for  non- 
believers.1 

A  further  question  arises,  From  what  are  men  con- 
ceived of  as  rising  in  the  resurrection  ?  Paul  speaks 
either  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  (di/ao-rao-i? 
veicpwv)  1  Cor.  xv.  12, 13,  21,  et  a?.),  or  of  resurrection 
from  (among)  the  dead  (e/c  vetcpwv,  Rom.  vi.  4 ;  vii. 
4;  1  Cor.  xv.  12,  et  «Z.).  The  latter  expression  he 
couples  only  with  Christ's  resurrection ;  the  former 
he  regularly  employs  of  the  resurrection  in  general. 
The  conception  in  the  expression,  resurrection  e/c 
veKpwv,  is  evidently  that  of  a  rising  up  out  of  the 
underworld,  Sheol,  —  resurrection  from  the  realm  of 
the  dead.  How  the  apostle  conceived  of  the  person, 

1  If  we  could  assume  with  confidence  that  the  report  of  Paul's 
speech  before  Felix  accurately  reproduced  his  language  in  detail, 
the  apostle's  belief  in  "  a  resurrection  both  of  the  just  and  of  the 
unjust "  (Acts  xxiv.  15)  would  be  securely  established ;  but  in 
view  of  the  silence  of  his  epistles  this  assumption  becomes  a  pre- 
carious one. 


358  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

or  spirit,  of  Christ,  as  related  to  his  body  during  the 
period  between  his  death  and  resurrection,  he  has  in 
no  way  intimated.  The  Jewish  conception  of  Sheol, 
which  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Paul  had, 
in  its  general  idea,  abandoned,  in  connection  with  the 
two  expressions  already  referred  to,  requires  us  to 
suppose  that  he  conceived  of  the  dead  persons  as  ris- 
ing from  the  underworld,  or  realm  of  disembodied 
spirits,  and  being  clothed  with  bodies  suited  to  the 
lii'e  upon  which  they  then  enter. 

Did  Paul,  then,  believe  in  an  intermediate  state  ? 
He  has  certainly  developed  no  doctrine  concerning  it, 
and  it  is  a  perplexing  question  as  to  what  his  state- 
ments most  naturally  imply.  His  expectation  of  the 
nearness  of  the  parousia  naturally  accounts  for  his 
entire  neglect  of  this  subject.  Even  if  his  principles 
required  the  assumption  of  a  middle  state,  the  con- 
ception of  such  a  state  would  remain  comparatively  un- 
important for  him  in  view  of  the  speedy  culmination  of 
human  history  in  the  resurrection  and  judgment.  His 
expressions  regarding  the  believer's  entrance  at  death 
into  the  immediate  presence  of  Christ  (2  Cor.  v.  6-8 ; 
Phil.  i.  23)  seem  unfavorable  to  the  idea  of  an 
intermediate  state,  and  certainly  reflect  a  widely  dif- 
ferent conception  of  the  condition  of  the  soul  between 
death  and  judgment  from  that  which  was  connected 
with  the  Jewish  notion  of  Sheol.  On  the  other  hand, 
it  is  certain  that  with  Paul  the  resurrection  and  judg- 
ment are  definite  future  events  which  ensue  upon  the 
Lord's  return.  What,  then,  is  the  state  of  the  dead  in 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  359 

the  interval  between  their  death  and  the  day  of  their 
resurrection  ?  The  apostle  has  given  no  answer,  be- 
yond expressing  the  confident  hope  that  the  believer 
enters  at  death  into  fellowship  with  Christ.  In  what 
state  or  sphere  this  fellowship  will  be  realized  pre- 
vious to  the  bestowal  of  the  resurrection-body,  and 
to  the  final  award  of  the  judgment  day,  we  are  left 
to  conjecture.  We  thus  see  that  Paul  has  ex- 
pressed the  Christian  hope  of  immediate  entrance 
into  fellowship  with  Christ  at  death,  without  in  any 
way  adjusting  this  hope  to  his  doctrine  of  the  resur- 
rection from  the  realm  of  the  dead  at  the  second 
advent.  His  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  and  the 
judgment  seem  clearly  to  presuppose  some  sort  of 
preliminary  state  between  death  and  the  completion 
of  personal  life  in  the  resurrection ;  but  the  hope  of 
being  at  once  with  Christ,  together  with  the  expecta- 
tion of  the  Lord's  speedy  return,  has  deterred  the 
apostle's  mind  from  developing  any  doctrine  of  the 
middle  state  which  his  principles  so  obviously  require. 
Whatever  view  is  taken  of  the  implications  of  Paul's 
doctrine  regarding  the  resurrection  of  non-Christians, 
it  is  certain  that  he  regards  all  men  as  amenable  to 
the  final  judgment  (Rom.  ii.  5-9 ;  xiv.  10-12).  This 
subject,  also,  he  often  treats  in  its  relation  to  believ- 
ers. Their  work  will  then  be  tested,  and  will  be 
either  approved  or  rejected  (1  Cor.  iii.  14, 15).  The 
principal  problem  to  which  his  language  gives  rise  is, 
How  is  his  teaching  that  men  are  to  be  judged  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  deeds  done  in  the  body  to 


360        THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

be  reconciled  with  his  doctrine  of  grace  according  to 
which  the  believer  is  not  treated  in  accordance  with 
his  works,  but  in  a  gracious  manner  and  better  than 
he  deserves  ?  His  conception  of  the  judgment,  in  this 
aspect  of  it,  is  thus  described :  "  For  we  must  all  be 
made  manifest  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ; 
that  each  one  may  receive  the  things  done  in  the 
body,  according  to  what  he  hath  done  [ra  Sta  rot)  <ra>- 
/Ltaro?  777)09  a  e7rpa£ev],  whether  it  be  good  or  bad" 
(2  Cor.  v.  10 ;  cf.  xi.  15 ;  1  Thess.  ii.  19,  20).  Here 
Paul  seems  to  affirm  for  all  men  a  merely  legal  judg- 
ment, whose  awards  shall  be  in  precise  equivalence  to 
their  deeds,  instead  of  taking  account  of  faith  in 
Christ  as  divinely  accepted  for  righteousness,  and  en- 
titling the  believer  to  a  gracious  treatment.  Who, 
then,  can  be  saved  if  none  have  sufficient  works  of 
merit  to  constitute  a  claim  to  acceptance,  and  the 
awards  of  the  judgment  are  nevertheless  to  be  in 
strict  proportion  to  what  men  have  done  ? 

Various  solutions  of  this  problem  have  been  pro- 
posed. Baur  maintained  that  the  contrast  between 
justification  by  faith  and  justification  by  works  was 
in  abstract  and  theoretic  contrast  which  designated 
respectively  the  characteristics  of  Christianity  and 
Judaism.  In  concrete  application  to  the  individual 
Christian,  both  these  ideas  meet  and  blend.  "  Works 
and  faith,  or  outer  and  inner,  are  in  the  life  of  the 
individual  not  so  separated  that  where  the  one  is, 
something  of  the  other  would  not  also  be  always 
present ;  only  both  together,  in  their  relation  to  each 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  361 

other,  constitute  the  essence  of  piety,  the  disposition, 
the  moral  quality,  without  which  man  cannot  be  justi- 
fied before  God." 1  Pfleiderer  holds  that  Paul's  doc- 
trine of  a  day  of  judgment  and  of  the  equivalence 
between  awards  and  deeds,  is  a  fragment  of  Jewish 
theology  which  is  not  consonant  with  his  Christian 
principle  of  grace,  —  a  survival  in  his  thought  of  a 
conception  which  is  not  assimilated  to  his  system.2 
Ritschl  remarks  that  "  Paul  does  not  reflect  upon  the 
imperfection  of  the  moral  actions  of  believers,  in 
order  to  seek  their  complement  in  justification  through 
Christ."3  Reuss  says  that  this  doctrine  of  the  judg- 
ment according  to  good  actions  is  purely  Jewish,  and 
has  no  point  of  connection  with  Paul's  evangelical 
doctrine  of  faith  as  the  condition  of  the  Christian's 
acceptance  with  God,  or  with  his  doctrine  of  resurrec- 
tion as  guaranteed  by  union  with  Christ.  He  adds 
that  the  Church  should  not  seek  to  combine  into  one 
system  these  incompatible  conceptions.4 

To  these  opinions  of  the  problem,  I  will  only  add 
the  ingenious  solution  of  Weiss :  "  This  equivalent 
(the  exact  correspondence  of  reward  to  the  deeds 
done)  is  not  to  be  regarded  in  the  rigid  judicial 
sense  as  an  external  balancing  of  wages  and  ser- 
vice, but  as  the  natural  correspondence  of  harvest 
and  seed-time"  (Gal.  vi.  7,  8).  He  explains  the 

1  Vorlesungen  iiber  Neutestamentl.   Theol.  p.  181. 

2  Paulinismus,  pp.  281,  282;  Eng.  tr.  i.  266. 
8  Rechtfertigung  und  Versohnung,  ii.  365. 

*  Theol.  Chret.au  Siecle  Apos.  ii.  221,  222. 


362  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

"  deeds  done  "  as  denoting,  in  the  case  of  the  Chris- 
tian, his  whole  activity  as  determined  by  the  Spirit, 
and  the  award  as  not  being  legally  due,  but  as  fol- 
lowing by  a  natural  necessity.1  The  principle  of 
equivalence,  then,  as  applied  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
judgment,  is  not  to  be  interpreted  in  a  narrow  legal 
spirit,  but  in  accord  with  Paul's  Christian  standpoint. 
There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  apostle 
has  retained,  in  regard  to  the  judgment,  Jewish  phrase- 
ology which  belongs  to  the  scheme  of  debt  and  works 
that  he  so  energetically  rejected  and  opposed ;  in 
other  words,  he  did  not  extend  the  application  of  the 
terminology  of  his  doctrine  of  grace  and  faith  to  that 
subject.  The  principles  of  his  system  obviously  re- 
quire a  distinction  to  be  made  between  the  basis  of 
judgment  for  such  as  refuse  God's  grace  and  insist 
upon  standing  upon  the  plane  of  law  and  works,  and 
for  those  who  renounce  all  claims  to  merit  and  accept 
the  gracious  offer  of  salvation  through  faith.  The 
principle  of  equivalence  can  apply  only  to  the  former 
class,  because  they  adhere  to  the  sphere  of  law,  and 
make  their  claim  upon  the  work-and-wages  principle. 
But  Paul  teaches  that  on  this  basis  there  can  be 
no  acceptance  with  God,  because  no  one  can  furnish 
proof  of  the  requisite  obedience  to  the  divine  require- 
ments. Salvation  is  attainable  only  on  the  principle 
of  a  gracious  concession  on  God's  part  toward  sinful 
men.  This  is  the  ground  of  their  acceptance  in  justi- 
fication, and  must  equally  be  the  basis  of  their  final 
i  Bib.  Theol  §  98  d. 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  363 

acceptance  in  the  judgment.  Yet  Paul  has  retained, 
in  describing  the  judgment,  the  formula  used  by  the 
Jews  which  comports  with  the  idea  of  a  merely 
legal,  and  not  with  that  of  a  gracious  or  Christian, 
judgment. 

While  we  are  thus  bound  to  recognize  the  fact  that 
Paul  has  not  carried  out  his  principle  of  grace  in 
application  to  the  judgment,  it  is  not  reasonable  to 
assume  that  this  Jewish  formula  descriptive  of  the 
judgment  was  understood  by  him  in  the  same  narrow 
sense  in  which  he  had  understood  it  as  a  Pharisee. 
It  is  impossible  that  his  intensely  ethical  and  per- 
sonal conceptions  of  religion  should  not  have  broad- 
ened the  terms  of  this  formula  of  equivalence.  While 
it  is  certain,  on  the  one  hand,  that  his  theology  of 
grace  did  not  replace  the  terms  of  the  Pharisaic 
theory  of  salvation  regarding  the  method  of  the  judg- 
ment, it  is  a  just  and  tenable  view  that  this  theology 
elevated  and  broadened  those  terms  in  accord  with 
its  own  spirit,  so  that  the  "  deeds  done  in  the  body  " 
comprehended,  in  the  case  of  the  Christian,  all  the 
activities  of  a  life  of  faith  which  works  by  love.  The 
reward,  in  such  a  case,  Paul  could  not  have  regarded 
as  legally  due  on  the  ground  of  personal  merit,  but 
as  morally  due  according  to  that  gracious  system  of 
divine  action  which  has  made  faith,  obedience,  love, 
and  service  the  conditions  of  receiving,  not  of  achiev- 
ing, final  salvation. 

It  remains  to  review  Paul's  statements  regarding 
the  final  consummation  of  the  Messianic  kingdom. 


364  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

When  the  end  of  the  present  world-period  arrives, 
Christ  will  deliver  over  to  God  his  mediatorial  king- 
dom, but  not  until  he  shall  have  subdued  all  ene- 
mies, of  which  death  is  the  last  to  be  overcome. 
Death,  however,  shall  be  subdued  in  the  resurrec- 
tion and  the  glorification  of  believers.  When  Christ 
has  thus  accomplished  the  object  of  his  reign,  he  shall 
also  himself  become  subject  to  the  Father,  that  God 
may  be  all  in  all  (1  Cor.  xv.  24-28).  It  appears 
from  the  fact  that  the  work  of  Christ  in  his  kingdom 
is  under  consideration,  that  the  "  subjection  "  of  the 
Son  spoken  of  denotes  an  official  surrender  of  the 
function  of  Mediator,  whose  work  is  now  complete,  so 
that,  in  contrast  to  the  mediatorial  rule  of  Christ, 
God  may  be  the  immediate  ruler  in  all  the  subjects 
of  the  kingdom  (cf.  verse  22 ;  Phil.  ii.  10, 11 ;  Rom. 
xi.  32;  Col.  i.  20). 

In  these  passages  the  final  triumph  of  Christ  over 
opposing  powers  -is  plainly  asserted.  Do  they  involve 
the  idea  of  the  final  conversion  of  all  to  Christ,  and 
of  their  restoration  to  divine  favor  ?  If  the  language 
of  these  verses  might  be  taken  by  itself,  it  would  most 
naturally  suggest  this  conception.  Its  terms  are  the 
broadest  and  most  positive  which  could  be  employed 
to  assert  the  absolute  submission  of  all  evil  powers 
to  Christ.  Neander  regards  them  as  presenting  a 
"magnificent  prospect  of  the  final  triumph  of  the 
work  of  redemption."  l  Pfleiderer  affirms  that  this 
subjection  of  all  things  under  Christ,  this  bowing  of 

1  Planting  and  Training,  Bolm  ed.  i.  531;  Am.  ed.  p.  487. 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  365 

all  knees  to  him,  which  Paul  describes,  can  be  con- 
ceived as  realized  only  by  the  annihilation  of  the 
wicked  or  by  their  conversion.1  Julius  Miiller  does 
not  regard  these  passages  as  in  themselves  decisive 
apart  from  considerations  drawn  from  other  sources.2 
It  appears  to  me  unwarranted  to  explain  these  ex- 
pressions without  reference  to  the  principles  of  Paul's 
system  as  a  whole.  When  it  is  said  that  "  in  Christ 
shall  all  be  made  alive"  (1  Cor.  xv.  22), —  whether 
£ci)07roiijdij(TovTai  refer  to  resurrection  (as  is  prob- 
able), or  to  spiritual  life, — it  cannot  be  maintained, 
on  Pauline  principles,  that  this  making  alive  occurs 
apart  from  union  with  Christ ;  that  is,  apart  from  the 
personal  appropriation  of  the  benefits  of  Christ's  work 
by  faith.  In  like  manner,  when  in  verse  28  God  is 
said  to  be  "all  in  all,"  —  whether  eV  •jratnv  is  taken 
as  masculine  (Godet,  Meyer,  Weiss)  or  neuter  (Ed- 
wards, Lechler,  Heinrici),  —  it  does  not  follow,  on 
the  former  supposition,  that  eV  Trda-iv  is  more  com- 
prehensive than  the  "  all  things  "  which  have  before 
been  mentioned  as  ruled  over  by  the  Son  ;  nor,  on  the 
latter,  that  all  evil  world-powers  are  willingly  sub- 
jected to  God's  rule.  It  cannot  be  concluded  from 
the  statement  that  all  men  and  powers  are  subdued 
to  divine  rule,  and  are  rendered  subject  to  Christ's 
kingdom,  that  all  are  thus  subject  in  the  same  sense, 
unless  the  principles  of  the  system  authorize  such  a 
supposition. 

1  Paulinismus,  pp.  288,  289;  Eng.  tr.  i.  275. 
»  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  ii.  426,  427. 


366  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY 

It  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  these  expressions, 
taken  absolutely  and  by  themselves,  would  most  natu- 
rally be  understood  to  point  to  the  restoration  of  all 
men.  This  interpretation  of  them,  however,  cannot 
be  adjusted  either  to  Paul's  doctrine  of  man,  of  sal- 
vation, or  of  the  judgment.  But  two  courses  seem 
open  to  the  interpreter,  —  either  to  hold  the  terms 
of  these  passages  subject,  in  concrete  application,  to 
those  modifications  which  are  required  by  the  condi- 
tions of  salvation  that  the  apostle  elsewhere  regards 
as  not  fulfilled  in  all ;  or  to  assert,  with  Pfleiderer,  an 
insoluble  contradiction  between  that  harmonious  out- 
come of  human  history  which  accords  with  Paul's 
"  religious  speculation "  respecting  the  principle  of 
grace,  and  the  dualism  which  corresponds  to  his  legal 
standpoint  of  "  moral  reflection." 1 

The  impression  made  by  an  impartial  examination 
of  the  salient  points  in  Paul's  eschatological  teach- 
ing is,  that  he  has  expressed  the  content  of  Christian 
hope  without  close  reflection  upon  the  relation  of  the 
various  elements  of  his  doctrine  to  one  another.  The 
reserve  of  his  teaching  respecting  the  future  is  evi- 
dent when  one  seeks  for  replies  to  many  of  the 
questions  regarding  the  resurrection,  the  intermedi- 
ate state,  and  the  judgment,  with  which  theology  is 
required  to  deal.  His  statements  are  assertions  of 
general  principles  rather  than  parts  of  a  coherent 
system.  He  was  confident  of  being  with  Christ  at 
once  after  death,  and  of  being  clothed  upon  with 
1  Paulinismus,  pp.  272,  273,  1  AufL;  Eng.  tr.  i.  276. 


THE  PAULINE  ESCHATOLOGY  367 

the  heavenly  house  (2  Cor.  v.  1,  2), —  the  spiritual 
body ;  he  was  sure  that  God  would  judge  all  men  in 
righteousness,  and  that  Christ  would  triumph  over 
every  foe.  But  his  language  must  be  forced  and  sup- 
plemented with  many  conjectures  before  it  can  be 
made  to  yield  any  detailed  eschatological  program,  or 
to  afford  an  answer  to  the  numerous  inquiries  to  which 
speculative  thought  gives  rise  in  connection  with  his 
affirmations.  It  was  wholly  aside  from  his  purpose 
to  write  in  respect  to  this,  or  in  respect  to  any  other 
subject,  a  systematically  reasoned  argument  which 
should  answer  the  demands  of  scientific  thought.  He 
wrote  for  a  more  practical,  and,  in  relation  to  his 
time  and  purpose,  a  more  important  end,  —  to  foster 
and  strengthen  the  Christian  life.  Of  this  fact  we 
find  an  illustration  in  the  way  in  which  he  closes  the 
chapter  on  the  resurrection,  with  which  our  attention 
has  been  so  much  occupied  :  "  Wherefore,  my  be- 
loved brethren,  be  ye  stedfast,  unmoveable,  always 
abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  forasmuch  as  ye 
know  that  your  labour  is  not  in  vain  in  the  Lord" 
(1  Cor.  xv.  58). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

(See  explanatory  remarks  in  Preface,  page  x.) 


I.    TREATISES  ON  THE  PAULINE  THEOLOGY. 

O.  PFLEIDERER  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Berlin),  Der  Paulinis- 
mus;  ein  Beitrag  zur  Geschichte  der  urchristlichen  Theologie. 
2  Aufl.  Leipzig.  1890.  Translated  (from  the  first  edition) 
by  E.  Peters.  2  vols.  Williams  &  Norgate,  London,  1877. 

O.  PFLEIDERER,  The  Influence  of  the  Apostle  Paul  on  the  Develop- 
ment of  Christianity.  (The  Hibbert  Lectures,  1885.)  Williams 
&  Norgate,  London ;  Charles  Scribner's  Sons,  New  York. 

L.  USTERI,  Entwickelung  der  paulinischen  Lehrbegriffs,  u.  s.  w. 
Zurich,  1851. 

F.  C.  BAUR,  Paulus,  der  Apostel  Jesu  Christi,  u.  s.  w.  2  Aufl. 
Leipzig,  1866.  Translation  by  A.  Menzies.  2  vols.  Williams 
&  Norgate,  London,  1873-75. 

A.  SABATIER  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Paris),  L'Apotre  Paul: 
Esquisse  d'une  Hintoire  de  sa  Pensee.     G.  Fischbacher,  Paris, 
1881.     Translated  by  George  G.  Findlay.     New  York,  1891. 

JAMES  FREEMAN  CLARKE,  The  Ideas  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  trans- 
lated into  their  Modern  Equivalents.  Boston,  1884. 

E.  RENAN,  Saint  Paul.  Translated  by  I.  Lockwood.  New  York, 
1869. 

II.   WOKKS  ON  NEW  TESTAMENT  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

B.  WEISS  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Berlin),  Lehrbuch  der  bib- 
lischen  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments.    5  Aufl.    Berlin,  1888. 
Translation  (from  the  third  edition)  by  David  Eaton.     2  vols. 
T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh,  1882-83. 

24 


870  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

E.  RE  ess    (formerly    Professor    of    Theology    in    Strasbourg), 
Histoire  de  la  Theologie  chre'tienne  au  Siecle  apostolique.    2  vols. 
Strasbourg   and   Paris,   1864.      Translation   by    Annie  Har- 
wood.     2  vols.     Hodder  &  Stoughton,  London,  1872. 

F.  C.    BAUR,     Vorlesungen    uber    neuteslamentlich*     Theologie. 
Leipzig,  1864, 

A.  IMMER,  Theologie  des  Neuen  Testaments.     Bern,  1877. 

III.    HISTORICAL  WORKS  ON  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE. 

A.  NEANDER,  History  of  the  Planting  and  Training  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  etc.  Translated  by  J.  E.  Ryland.  2  vols.  George 
Bell  &  Sons  (Bohn  ed.),  London.  The  same  revised  cy 
E.  G.  Robinson.  Sheldon  &  Co.,  New  York,  1869. 

G.  V.  LECHLER  (late  Professor  of  Theology  in  Leipzig),  Dan 
apostolische  und  das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter,  u.  s.  w.     3  Aufl. 
Leipzig,  1885.    Translation  by  A.  J.  K.  Davidson.   Edinburgh, 
1886. 

C.  WEIZSACKER  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Tubingen),  Das 
apostolische  Zeitalter,  u.  s.  w.  Freiburg,  1886. 

O.  PFLEIDERER,  Das  Urchrislenthum,  seine  Schriften  und  Lehren, 
u.  s.  w.  Berlin,  1887. 

A.  RITSCHL,  Entstehung  der  altkatholischen  Kirche.  2  Aufl. 
Bonn,  1857. 

IV.   TREATISES  OR  ESSAYS  ON  SPECIAL  TOPICS. 

W.  P.  DICKSON  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Glasgow),  Saint  Paul's 
Use  of  the  Terms  Flesh  and  Spirit.  Glasgow,  1883. 

C.  HOLSTEN  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Heidelberg),  Die  Christus- 
vision  des  Paulus  und  die  Genesis  des  paulinischen  Evangelium 
(1861),  and,  Die  Bedeutung  des  Wortes  crdp£  im  Lehrbegriffe 
des  Paulus  (1855),  forming  part  of  the  volume  entitled,  Zum 
Evangelium  des  Paulus  und  des  Petrus.  Rostock,  1868. 

GEORGE  MATHESOX  (Pastor  in  Edinburgh),  Spiritual  Develop- 
ment of  Saint  Paul.  Wm.  Blackwood  &  Sons,  Edinburgh  and 
London,  1890. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  371 

R.  A.  LIPSIUS  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Jena),  Die  paulinische 

Rechtfertiyungslehre,  u.  s.  w.     Leipzig,  1853. 
GEORGE  P.  FISHER  (Professor  in  Yale  University),  An  Exami- 
nation of  Baur  and  Strauss  on  the  Conversion  of  Paul,  in  The 

Supernatural    Origin    of   Christianity,    p.    459    sq.      Charles 

Scribner's  Sons,  New  York. 
GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  The  Apostle  Paul,  in  Discussions  in  History 

and    Theology,   p.   487   sq.      Charles    Scribner's   Sons,    New 

York,  1880. 

A.  B.  BRUCE  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Glasgow),  Paul's  Conver- 
sion and  the  Pauline  Gospel.     Presbyterian  Review,  October, 

1880,  p.  652  sq. 
MATTHEW  ARNOLD,  Saint  Paul,  and  Protestantism.     Macmillan 

&  Co.,  London  and  New  York. 
JAMES  STALKER  (Pastor  in  Glasgow),    The  Life  of  Saint  Paul, 

chap,  iv.,  entitled   His   Gospel,  p.  44  sq.     T.  and  T.  Clark, 

Edinburgh. 
JAMES  IVERACH  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Aberdeen),  Saint 

Paul:   His  Life  and  Times,  chap,  xv.,  entitled  The  Pauline 

Theology,  p.  203  sq. 

EDUARD  GRAFE  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Bonn),   Die  paul- 
inische Lehre  vom  Gesetz,  u.  s.  w.     Freiburg  and  Tubingen, 

1884. 
H.  LUDEMANN,  Die  Anthropologie  des  Apostels  Paulus  und  ihre 

Stellung  innerhalb  seiner  Heilslehre.     Kiel,  1872. 
L.  ERNESTI,  Die  Ethik  des  Apostels  Paulus  in  ihren  Grundzilgen 

dargestellt.     3  Aufl.     Gottingen,  1880, 
H.   GUXKEL,   Die    Wirkungen   des   Heiligen    Geistes,    nach   der 

populdren  Anschauung   der  apostolischen  Zeit  und  nach  der 

Lehre  des  Apostels  Paulus.     Gottingen,  1888. 
J.  GLOEL,  Der  Heilige  Geist  in  der  Heilsverkiindigung  des  Paulus. 

Halle,  1888. 
R.  SCHMIDT,  Die  paulinieche  Christologie  in  ihrem  Zusammen- 

hange  mil  der  Heilslehre  des  Apostels  dargestellt.     Gottingen, 

1870. 
E.  MENKGOZ  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Paris),  La  Predestination 

dans  la  The'ologie  Paulinienne.     Paris,  1884. 


372  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

E.  MENEGOZ,  Le  Pe'che  et  la  Redemption  d'apres  Scint  Paul. 
Paris,  1882. 

W.  BEYSCHLAG  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Halle),  Die  paulinische 
Theodicee,  Rb'mer  ix.-xi.  Berlin,  1868. 

A.  THOLUCK,  The  Life,  Character,  and  Style  of  the  Apostle  Paul, 
translated  and  published  in  a  volume  entitled  Selections  from 
German  Literature.  By  B.  B.  Edwards  and  E.  A.  Park. 
Andover,  1839. 

E.  HATCH,  article  Paul  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica. 

A.  HAUSRATH  (Professor  of  Theology  in  Heidelberg),  Drittes 
Buck,  pp.  123-194,  in  Der  Apostel  Paulus.  2  Aufl.  Heidel- 
berg, 1872. 

A.  MONOD,  Saint  Paul.  Five  discourses  (translated  ;  Andover, 
1861). 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


ACTS    OF    THE 
TLES. 

v.  34  sq.   .    . 

APO8- 

Page 
.      54 

1    THESSALO> 
i.  1 

IANS. 
Page 
76,  320 
.     300 

ii.  19,  20  .     .     . 

vi.  13,  14  .     .     .     . 

70 

iv.  11  .     .     .     . 

88 

ix.  15  

21 

iv.  13  sq.  .     .     89, 
iv.  14  .     .     .     . 
iv.   15       ... 

345,  346 
.    342 
89 

ix.  20-22  .     .     .     . 
ix.  29  

21,76 
21 

x.  14    

.      71 

iv.  16  .     .     .     . 

.    354 

xi.  19  

21 

iv.  16,  17  ... 

.     350 

xiii.  5,  14      .    .    . 
xiii.  30     .     .     .     . 

.      21 

76 

v.  1      88 

2    THESSALONIANS. 
i.  5  319 

xiii.  42-46     .     .    . 
xiv.  15-17     .     .     . 
xiv.  17      .     .     .     . 

.      21 

.      76 
.     103 

XV.  1     

.      71 

xv.  24  
xvi.  3  
xvi  15 

71 
.     170 
.     334 

ii.  2      ....  81 
ii.  3     

,  89,  346 
89,  346 

xvi.  37      .     .     .     . 
xvii.  1-4  .     .     .     . 
xvii.  2      .     .     .     . 

.      55 
.      88 
.      76 

ii.  3  sq  
ii.  1-12     ...  78 
ii.  6,  7      .... 

321 
,  81,  347 
.     347 

xvii.  3      .     .     .     . 
xvii.  22-31    .     .     . 

.      76 
.      76 

iii.  2    
iii.  6-12    .... 

.     346 
.     346 

xvii.  26,  27   .     .     . 

.     108 

iii.  10-12       .     .    . 
iii.  17  

.      89 
.      79 

xvii.  29    .     .     .     . 

.     108 

ROMANS. 

i.  1  
i.  1-7   
i.  3       
i.  4       
i.  8       
i.  14     
i.  16     .     .    .     .21 
i.  17     .     .    40.41, 
i.  18     .     .     .    .41 
i.  18-20    .... 
i.  18-32    .... 
i.  19     ...   103, 
i.  20     .     .  29.  104. 
i.  21-23    .... 
i.  24,  26    .... 
i.  26     

2 
.      28 
206,212 
.    203 
27,353 
.     163 
,  90,  107 
282,  294 
,  99,  242 
.     151 
.      47 
106,  158 
108,  158 
.    107 
.     151 
.    163 

xvii.  30    .     .     .     . 

.     100 

xviii.  5-11     .     .     . 
xviii.  24   .     .     .     . 

.      76 
.     313 

xix.  1  
xx.  31  
xxi.  8  
xxi.  22     .     .     .    . 
xxii.  3      .     .     .     . 
xxii.  21    .     .     .     . 
xxii.  25-29    .     .     . 
xxiii.  1     .     .     .     . 
xxiii  8     .     .     .     . 

.    313 
.      76 
.     325 
.      61 
54,76 
.      21 
.      65 
9 
53 

xxiv.  15    ... 
xxvi.  2     .     .     .     . 
xxvi.  5     .     .     .     . 
xxvi.  9     .     .     .     . 
xxvi.  14   .     .     .    . 
xxvi.  16-18  .     .     . 
xxviii.  4  .    .    .    . 

354,357 
.      76 
.       52 
.9,17 
9 
.      21 
.      61 

Page 

i.  28 29,  151 

ii.  1  sq.  .  .  47,  106, 151 

ii.  5-9 359 

ii.  6 152 

ii.  8 99 

ii.  12  sq.  .  .  48,  106,  101 
ii.  13  .  .  .  106,  181,  264 
ii.  14  ...  154,  158,  107 
ii.  14,  15  .  .  .  .  103, 104 

ii.  16 25 

ii.  17 29 

ii.  21 29 

ii.  21-24 152 

ii.  23-27 102 

ii.  24 63 

ii.  25 170 

ii.  26 106,167 

iii.  1,2 107 

iii.  2 27,  353 

iii.  9  ....  41,  61,  107 

iii.  19 163 

iii.  20  .  .  .  162,  176, 177 

iii.  20-23 106 

iii.  21 263 

iii.  21,  22   ....   40 

iii.  21-26 102 

iii.  22 41, 106 

iii.  23 130 

iii.  24 98,  235 

iii.  25 237 

iii.  25,  26   .  99,  235,  246 

iii.  27 105 

iv.  3 262 

iv.  4 98,  333 

iv.  5 262 

iv.  6 262 

iv.  9 202 

iv.  10-13 175 

iv.  11 41,  202 

iv.  15 178 

iv.  13-17 168 

iv.  22 262 

iv.  23 262 

iv.  24 262 

iv.  25 254 

.  .  98,  121,  227 


374 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


Page 
T.  10    .     .     .228,  230,  243 
v.  12    .    37,  38,  40,  41,  156 
v.  12-18     29 

ix.  6,  7     . 
ix.  14 

Page 
....    112 
.    ...    115 

ii.  15   .    . 

** 

iii.  1    .    . 

.     .     .         300 

ix.  15-29  . 
ix.  16  .    . 
ix.  18  .    . 

.     ...     116 
.     ...     115 
....     115 

iii.  1-23   . 
iii.  3    .    . 
iii.  6-9 

.     .      314,  315 
.   141,  146,  299 
323 

v.  12-21  36,  49,  123  sq.,  274 
v.  14    210 

v.  18    230 

ix.  19-23  . 

....     118 

iii.  9 

....    323 

v.  20    .     168,  176,  178,  299 
v.  21    41 

ix.  20  .     . 

....     113 

iii.  14,  15 
iii.  16,  17 
iii.  18  .    . 
iii.  21-23  . 

....    359 
....    323 
....    320 
.     .                28 

ix.  22  .     . 
ix.  22-24  . 
ix.  23  .     . 

.     .      116,  117 
...   29,  116 
....      98 

vi.  i_7      332 

vi.  1-20    '299 

vi.  2     295 
vi.  2-4      272 

ix.  30  sq.  . 
ix.  31  .     . 

....      21 
....     115 

iv.  6     .     . 
\v.  20  .     . 

....    348 
....    319 

vi.  3     .     .     .     .      295,  334 

ix.  32  .     . 

....     Ill 

v.  10    .    . 

....       Gl 

vi.  4      35,  36,  232,  296,  357 
vi.  6     .     .     .     41,  131,  145 
vi.  7     273 
vi.  8     .     .33,  37,  232,  295 
vi.  8-23    273 

ix.  33  .    . 

.     ...      68 

vi.  2     .     . 

.     .    356 

x.  2      .     . 
x.  3      .     . 
x.  4      .     . 
x.  5      .     . 

....    115 
.   Ill,  114,  204 
.   183,  193,  196 
.    .         .    181 

vi.  9     .     . 
vi.  13  .     . 

....     319 
....     142 

vi  19  .     . 

....     142 

vii.  1-40  . 
vii.  14  .    . 
vii.  18  .     . 

.     .     .  316-318 
....    334 
....     327 

vi.  11  29G 
vi.  12  145 
vi.  13  145 
vi.  14  165 

x.  9      .     . 
x.  9-13     . 
x.  12    .     . 
x.  13    .     . 

....    201 
.     .      Ill,  114 
....     201 
....      68 

vii.  20  .     . 
vii.  21  .     . 

....    327 
....     3^7 

vi.  17  303 

Y.    91        . 

....     114 

vii.  22  .     . 

....     327 

vi.  19  300  !  *i-  16 

.     .     .          155 

vii.  26  .     . 

....    347 

vi.  20  303 
vi.  22  303 
vii.  1-6     ....   43,  273 
vii.  4    357 

xi.  18  sq.  . 
xi.  21  .     . 
xi.  32  .     . 
xi.  36  .     . 

....     115 

....     155 
....     364 
....     222 

vii.  26-31 
vii.  39  .     . 
viii.  1-29 
viii.  6  . 

....    327 
....     342 
.     .     .  310-312 
.     .     .  203,  222 

vii.  5    145 

....     322 

ix.  1     .     . 

....      11 

vii.  7    .     .     .     .       1G7,  177 
vii.  7-25    12,  1G5,  172,  175, 
182,  184,  273,  274 
vii.  8   177,  178 

xiii.  1-7    . 
xiii  9 

.     .      308,  309 
....     180 

ix.  2     .     . 
ix.  9,  10   . 

....     20C, 
....       (-0 

xiii.  9,  10 
xiii.  10     . 

....     167 
....     301 

ix.  10  .     . 
ix.  22  .     . 

....       (1 

....     n 

vii.  9    42,  190 
vii.  10       .     .   171,  173,  190 
vii.  12       167 
vii.  12-14      ....     302 
vii.  13       177 

xiii.  12     . 
xiii.  13,  14 
xiv.  1-21  . 
xiv.  10-12 
xiv.  17      . 

....      90 
....     141 
.     .      309,  310 
....    359 
....    319 

x.  16    .    . 
x.  17    .     . 

x.  20    .    . 
x.  22    .    . 
x.  32    .    . 

....     335 
....    337 
....    311 
....    201 
....     320 

vii.  14      .          .              167 

xv  3 

.     .     .     .      68 

xi.  1     .     . 

....     208 

vii.  14-26      .    143,  144,  147 
vii.  16-23      ....     158 
vii.  22      163 

xv.  24  .     . 

....      77 

xi.  3     .     . 
xi.  5     .    . 
xi.  6     .     . 

.     .      204,  330 
.     .      33  1,  331 
.     .     .     .     330 

xvi.  5  .     . 
xvi  25 

....     320 

25 

vii.  23      165 

1     CORINTHIANS, 
i.  2       320 

xi.  11,12. 
xi.  13  .     . 

....    329 
....     331 

vii.  23,  24     ...     13,  42 
vii.  24,  25     ....      19 
vii.  25  1C5 

xi.  15  .     . 

....     330 

xi  18  .    . 

....     320 

viii.  1  ....      276,  295 
viii.  2  231 
viii.  3       105,  148,  176,  181, 
188,  203,  209,  231 
viii.  3,  4  .     .     .       171,  277 
viii.  4  .     .     .   282,  299,  301 
viii  <lsq                           145 

xi.  20,  21  . 
xi.  23-25  . 
xi.  26  .    . 

.     .      324,  337 
.  207,  335,  336 
....     336 

i.  7 
1.  7,  8  .     . 

....      90 
....    348 

i.  8       .     . 
i.  12     .     . 
i.  13-16    . 
i  16 

....     350 
....    313 
....    332 
334 

xi.  27-34  . 
xi  30  .     . 

....    338 
.     .     342 

xi.  32  .     . 
xi.  33  .     . 

.     .     .     .    350 
....    324 

viii  5                               299 

i  18 

.    228 

xii.  3   .     . 

....    ail 

viii.  6  sq  145 
viii.  7  163 
viii.  9  ....       299,  301 
viii.  10     295 
viii.  11     355 

i  18  sq 

.     314 

xii  8   .     . 

....    32(i 

i.  22-24     . 
i.  26     .     . 
i.  30     .     . 
ii.  2      .     . 
ii.  6      .     . 
ii.  7      .     . 
ii  9 

....    326 
....     146 
....     289 
.     .      205,  228 
....     326 
....    110 
....      64 

xii.  10  .     . 

....    325 

xii.  12  .     . 

....    322 

xii.  12-31 
xii.  28  .     . 
xii.  29  .     . 
xii.  30  .     . 
xii.  31  .     . 

....    322 
.  320,  324,  326 
....     326 
....     325 
....    301 

viii.  15-17     ....      44 
viii.  29,  30    ....     119 
viii  32                              227 

ix.  6    .          .201  to..  206 

ii.  14   . 

.300.326 

xiii  1-3   . 

...    301 

INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


375 


xiii.  1-13. 
xiii.  2.    . 
xiii.  7  .     . 

Page 
.    .    .304-306 
.    .      307,  326 
....    307 

v.  10    . 

Page 
.    .    .    .  152,  360 

iv.  10  . 

Page 
166 

v.  14    . 
v.  15   37, 
v.  17    . 
v.  21   208 
vi.  14-18 
vii.  1    . 

.    33,  35,  208,  232 
130,  131,  228,  232 
295 
,  209,  240,  279,  289 
323 
....  144,  300 

iv.  21  . 

163 

iv.  21-31 
v.  2      . 
v.  3      . 
v.  11    . 
v.  12    . 

59 

Till.  10     . 
xiii.  13     . 
xiv.  1-5    . 
xiv.  2  .     . 

....      97 
....      97 
....    326 
.     .      304,  325 
....    304 

....   72,  169 
166 
228 
30 

viii.  9  . 
x.  1      . 

.     .     98,  203,  208 
208 

v.  14    . 
v.  16    . 

167 
300 

xiv,  5  .     . 

....    326 

xiv.  13     . 
xiv.  21      . 
xiv.  23,  24 
xiv.  24 

....    326 
....     163 
....    304 
....     1G3 

x.  2  sq. 
xi.  15  . 
xii.  1-7 
xii  2 

145 
3GO 
20 

v.  19-23 
v.  21    . 
v.  25    . 

141 
319 
301 

<2f) 

vi.  2     . 

Ifi4 

xiv.  24,  25 
xiv.  27,  28 
xiv.  34      . 

....    326 
.     .      304,  326 
.     .          .     331 

GALATIANS. 
i.  4  320.  321 

vi.  7,  8 
vi.  12  . 

3C1 

228 

vi.  14  . 

228 

xiv.  35     . 

.     .     .     .    331 

vi  15 

.      170 

xv.  3   .    . 
xv.  3-7     . 

.     .      205,  229 
....    207 

COLO88IAN8. 

xv.  6    .     . 

xv.  8    .     . 

.     .      342,  343 
.     .     .  11,  206 

i.  6.     . 
i.  11     . 

.     .     .     .     25,  98 
90 

xv.  9    .     . 

...     9,  320 

i.  12     . 

2,  10 

xv.  12,  13 
xv.  12-49 
xv.  18  .     . 
xv.  20  .     . 
xv  21 

....    357 
.     .     .  348-350 
.     .     .  342,  343 
.  342,  343,  352 
357 

i.  13     . 

i.  13,  14 
i.  15,  16 
i.  16     . 

i   18 

320 
10 

i.  15     . 
i.  16     . 
i.  18     . 
i.  19     . 
i.  20     . 

203 

.     .     .       202,213 
.     .     .      214,  221 
214 
364 

.     .     .    10,11,21 
8 

205 

xv.  22  .     . 
xv.  23  .     . 
xv.  23,  24 
xv  24 

36,  355,  304,  3C5 
.     90,  354,  355 
....    352 
356 

i.  17,  18 
i.  19     . 
li  3 

21 
33 

313 

i.  20*7 
i.  22     . 

22) 
216 

i.  24     . 

218 

ii  4 

71 

ii.  3      . 

214 

xv.  24-28 

....    364 

ii.  6 

ii  9 

205 

206 

ii.  9      . 
ii.  10    . 

.     .     .      214,323 
214 

xv.  28      203,  204,  222,  225, 
353,365 
xv.  35-49      ....      50 
xv.  45       355 

ii.  11-16 
ii.  15    . 

.     .    .     .   71,313 
.     .    .      154,  155 

ii.  12 
ii.  15    . 

.     .     .     .  35,  333 
215 

ii.  16,  17 
ii.  16-23 

197 

ii.  19   . 

.     280 

92 

xv.  45-47 
xv  47 

...   40,  126 
137 

ii.  20        121,  208,  232,  233, 
276,  280,  296,  301 

ii.  17    . 
ii.  18    . 

215 
92 

xv.  50       . 
xv.  51  .     . 

.    142,  319,  341 
....    342 

ii.  19    . 

......     214 

iii.  2     . 

300 

ii.  20    . 
iii.  1     . 
iii.  3    33 

.    33,  37,  131,  232 
.     .     34,  131,  217 
,  37,  131,  232,  233, 
276,301 
348 

xv.  55  .     . 

....      66 

iii.  6    . 

262 

xv.  56  .     . 
xv.  58 
xvi   12 

....    342 
....    367 

fil 

iii.  6-9 
iii.  10  , 
iii  10-12 

168 
166 

240 

xvi.  19     320 
xvi.  22     .     .     .     .90,348 

2    CORINTHIANS. 

i.  12     ....      141,  146 
i.  14     .....         3Kt\ 

iii.  12  . 
iii.  13  . 
iii.  16  . 

.     .     .      181,264 
240 

.     .     .     .   62,  206 

iii.  14  . 
iv   15 

306 
.    320 

PHILEMON. 

10,  11  30 
20        30 

iii.  17  . 

168 

iii.  17,  18 
iii.  19  . 
iii.  21  . 
iii.  23  . 
iii.  23,  24 
iii.  24  . 
iii  25 

175 

.     .   167,  175,  196 
.     .   167,177,188 
23 
....     161 
.     .     .      175,  196 
196 

EPHESIANS. 

i.  1,  2  152 
i.  4  227 
i.  4,  5  110 
i.  5  Ill,  213 

iii.  6    .     . 

.     .     .     .     180 

iii.  6,  7     . 

.     .     .         197 

iii.  7-11 

69 

iii  27 

332 

iii.  11  .     . 

.     .          .     197 

iii.  28  . 
iv.  1-7 
iv.  3     . 
iv.  4    . 
iv.  9     . 
iv.  9-11 

.     .     .      301,329 
44 
169 
203 
169 
197 

iv.  4     .     . 
iv.  5     .     . 

T.  1,  2  .      . 

v.  6-8.     . 

....     203 
....    200 
....     367 
.     .     .  341,  a58 

T.  8       .      . 

....    343 

376 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


1.10     .    . 

i.  20-22    . 

Page 

.   221,222,322 
....    217 

PHILIPPIANS. 

2    TIMOTHY. 
Page 
i.  10    342 

i.  21     .    . 

....     320 

1.  6  .    . 

350 

TITUS, 
ii.  12   .    .         .    .    .    acn 

i.  22     .    . 

.    .     .  221,  322 

i  10     . 

350 

ii.  3     .    . 
ii.  4     .    . 

ii.  4,  6      . 

.    .     .   152  «?. 
...   98,  121 
....     227 

i.  23    . 
ii.  5  sq. 
ii.  6-8. 
ii.  9-11 
ii.  10,  11 
iii.  2,  3 
iii.  6    . 

.     .   341,343,368 
208 
.     .     .      202,215 
217 

ii.  13   .    .    .    . 

OTHER    NETK 
MENT  B( 

Matt.  v.  17  gq. 
xix.  8 
xxiv.  29 
Mark  ii.  21,  22 
ii.  22  . 
xii.  33,  34 
Luke  iv.  23  . 
v.  36-39 
John  vi.  28,  29 
Heb.  vi.  5    . 
ix.  5    . 
x.  9      . 
1  Peter  ii.  6 
1  John  iv.  1 
Kev.  xx.  1-7 

.     .    202 

'    TESTA- 
)OK8. 

70,194 
194 
345 
195 
70 
194 
61 
1J>5 
283 
320 
236 
198 
68 
32fi 
354 

il.  10   .    . 

....    213 

ii.  12    .     . 

....     219 

364 

ii.  13   .    . 

....    219 

30 

ii.  14-16   . 

.    .     .         220 

180 

ii.  15   .    . 
ii.  16    .     . 

ii  20-22  . 

....    216 

.     .     .   98,322 
....     323 

iii.  9    . 
iii.  10-12 
iii   12  . 

.     .     .      264,279 
218 
2 

iii.  8    .     . 

....    214 

iii.  12-14 
iv.  5     . 

1 
i.  9.     . 

....     218 
348 

TIMOTHY. 
172 

iii.  11  .     . 
iv.  7-15    . 

.     .      213,  227 
....     221 

iv.  11  .    . 
iv.  13  .    . 

.     ;      324,  325 
....    323 

iv.  15  .     . 

....     323 

iv.  16  .    . 

....    322 

v.  2     .    . 

....    218 

i.  13     . 

10 

v.  4      .     . 

....      66 

ii   12    . 

331 

v.  22-25   . 

....    221 

ii.  14    . 

330 

v.  23    .     . 

....    330 

iii.  16  . 

148 

vi.5-9     . 

.    328 

iv.  1    . 

.     326 

GENERAL  INDEX 


ACTS,  accounts  of  Paul's  conversion 
contained  in,  6  sq. ;  Paul's  dis- 
courses in,  94  sq. 

Adam,  parallel  between,  and  Christ, 
36  sq. ;  primary  purpose  of  the 
parallel,  49,  123;  the  sinning  of 
all  in  his  sin,  37  sq.,  124  sq. ,-  the 
sense  in  which  all  sinned  in  his 
transgression,  129  sq. ;  theological 
treatment  of  his  sin  in  relation  to 
the  sinfulness  of  the  race,  133-137; 
his  fall,  137,  138. 

Adoption,  the  figure  of,  44. 

Allegorical  interpretation  in  the  Paul- 
ine epistles,  59  sq. 

Analogy,  Paul's  use  of,  42  sq. ;  how 
abused  in  theology,  253. 

Apocalypse,  the  Pauline  (2  Thess. 
ii.  1-12),  346,  347. 

Apostasy,  the,  which  is  to  precede 
the  parousia,  346. 

Apostles,  the  primitive,  their  view  of 
the  aim  of  the  gospel,  71;  their 
function  in  the  early  Church,  325. 

Apostolic  Age,  interest  and  impor- 
tance connected  with,  vii. 

Arnold,  Matthew,  on  the  perversion  | 
of  Paul's  theology  in  the  Church,  I 
vii. 

Atonement,  its  subjective  side,  232- 
234;  its  objective  aspects,  234  sq. ; 
its  presentation  under  the  figure  of 
a  ransom,  235-240;  twofold  repre- 
sentation of  by  Paul,  256-258. 


BAPTISM,  in  the  early  Church,  331- 
335. 


Baur,  on  Paul's  conversion,  3;   on 

Paul's   idea  of  righteousness,  40; 

on  Paul's  view  of  the  judgment, 

360. 

Bengel,  on  Adam's  sin,  131. 
Bibliography  of  Paulinism,  369-372. 
Bruce,  on  Pfleiderer's  theory  of  Paul's 

conversion,  3. 


CHHIST,  the  believer's  mystical  union 
with,  33  sq.  ;  parallel  between 
Adam  and,  36  sq. ;  Paul's  doctrine 
of  his  person,  199  sq. ;  Paul's  doc- 
trine of,  not  systematically  de- 
veloped, 199  ;  Paul's  personal 
knowledge  of,  200  sq. ;  his  "cos- 
mic significance,"  201,  202  ;  as 
"  Lord  "  and  "  Son  of  God,"  203 ; 
his  subordination  to  the  Father, 
204  sq. ;  Paul's  references  to  his 
earthly  life,  206-208;  his  sinless- 
ness,  209  sq. ;  doctrine  of,  in  the 
Epistles  of  the  Imprisonment,  213 
sq. ;  his  personal  pre-existence, 
223  xq.  ;  the  mediator  of  salvation 
by  his  death,  227,  228;  pays  the 
ransom  for  man's  redemption,  235- 
240 ;  manifests  the  divine  righteous- 
ness in  his  death,  237  sq  ;  becomes 
"  a  curse  "  and  "  sin  *'  on  our  be- 
half, 240  sq. ;  his  substitution  of 
himself  for  man  in  suffering, 
241  sq. ;  his  sufferings  not  punish- 
ment, 245  sq. ;  his  self-humiliation, 
248;  his  sufferings  a  substitute  for 
man's  punishment,  249,250;  saving 
value  of  his  resurrection,  254,  255  j 


378 


GENERAL  INDEX 


fellowship  with,  how  related  to 
justification,  276, 277 ;  the  believer's 
union  with,  279  sq. ;  his  headship 
over  the  Church,  322;  in  what 
sense  he  has  "  abolished  death," 
342. 

Church,  Paul's  .teaching  respecting 
the  unity  and  harmony  of,  313- 
315;  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
319  sq. ;  meaning  of  the  word 
"church"  in  his  epistles,  320; 
Christ's  headship  over,  321  sq.  ; 
Paul's  figurative  descriptions  of, 
323;  various  offices  and  functions 
in,  324,  325;  miraculous  gifts  in, 
325  sq. ;  its  relation  to  society,  327 
sq. ;  the  ordinances  of,  331  sq. 

Colossians,  Epistle  to  the,  criticism 
of,  78  sq.,  295  sq. 

Conscience,  as  a  medium  of  divine 
revelation,  104-106;  Paul's  treat- 
ment of  the  weak,  309  sq. 

Conversion  of  Paul,  1  sq. ;  explana- 
tions of,  by  Baur  and  Strauss,  3  sq. ; 
by  Holsten  and  Pfleiderer,  3  sq. ; 
account  of,  in  Acts,  6  sq. ;  refer- 
ences to,  in  Paul's  letters,  8  sq.  ; 
relation  of,  to  his  previous  and  sub- 
sequent life,  8  sq. ;  bearing  of  Rom. 
vii.  7  sq.  upon  the  problem  of,  12 
sq. ;  its  relation  to  his  future  work, 
23  sq.,  and  to  his  theology,  25; 
how  it  changed  his  view  of  the 
Old  Testament,  71  sq. 

Cremer,  on  the  meaning  of  the  term 
"flesh,"  147;  on  Paul's  use  of  the 
word  "  law,"  160. 

Criticism,  of  the  Pauline  epistles; 
state  of,  75  sq. 

Cross  of  Christ,  Paul's  doctrine  of, 
228  sq. ;  origin  of,  228 ;  its  rela- 
tion to  Paul's  belief  in  the  Mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus,  229. 

DEATH,  ethical,  of  believers  with 
Christ,  34  sq.  ;  as  the  consequence 
of  sin,  126;  ethical,  analogy  of  to 


sin  in  Adam,  130,  131;  of  Christ, 
significance  of,  227  sq. ;  does  Paul 
contemplate  it  apart  from  the  life 
of  Christ,  230-232 ;  ethical  death 
with  Christ  as  illustrating  the  sub- 
jective side  of  the  atonement,  232 
sq. ;  Christ's,  for  us,  in  what  sense, 
243  sq.  ;  Christ's,  the  causa  merit- 
oria  of  salvation,  255;  Paul's  con- 
ception of,  as  contrasted  with  the 
Jewish  idea  of,  341;  as  the  penalty 
of  sin,  341;  in  what  sense  abolished 
by  Christ,  342. 

Debt,  correlative  to  works,  262. 

Dickson,  on  Paul's  use  of  the  terms 
'•  flesh  "  and  "  spirit,"  148  sq. 

Discourses  of  Paul  in  Acts,  75,  76. 

Divorce,  Paul's  treatment  of,  316  sq. 

EDUCATION,  Paul's,  54  sq. 

Election,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  111  sq. 

Ephesians,  Epistle  to  the,  criticism  of, 
78  sq. 

Epistles,  of  Paul,  the  criticism  of,  75 
sq. ;  grouping  of,  76,  77 ;  the  Epis- 
tles of  the  Imprisonment,  Christ- 
ology  of,  213  sq. 

Eschatology,  Paul's,  339  sq. ;  unsys- 
tematic character  of,  366,  367. 

FAITH,  correlative  to  grace,  261 :  why 
reckoned  for  righteousness,  268  sq. ; 
the  opposite  of  merit,  281-283 ;  its 
relation  to  a  righteous  life,  289- 
291;  how  Paul's  doctrine  of  gives 
security  to  the  believer,  292,  293. 

Fall,  Paul's  doctrine  of  the,  137  sq. 

Fellowship  with  Christ,  how  related 
to  justification,  277,  278 

Flesh,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  139  sq  ; 
its  relation  to  the  body,  141-144; 
its  relation  to  sin,  145  sq. ;  its 
ethical  meaning,  146. 

GENTILKS,  moral  responsibility  of, 
106;  they  possess  in  their  con- 
sciences an  analogue  to  the  Jewish 
law,  163,  164. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


379 


Gerhard,  on  justification,  288. 

Gifts,  miraculous,  in  the  early 
Church,  325  sq. 

Gnosticism,  germs  of,  in  the  Epistles 
of  the  Imprisonment,  92. 

God,  Pauline  doctrine  of,  93  sq. ; 
revelation  grounded  in  his  nature, 
108-110;  the  Jews'  intense  sense 
of,  111;  his  electing  purpose,  111 
sq. ;  his  righteousness  manifested 
in  the  death  of  Christ,  23T  sq. 

Godet,  on  Christ's  satisfaction  to  the 
divine  righteousness,  251. 

Grace,  meaning  of,  98;  its  sole  effi- 
ciency in  salvation,  110;  its  cen- 
tral place  in  Paul's  teaching,  282. 

Grafe,  on  Paul's  treatment  of  the  law 
in  Romans  and  Galatians,  170, 171 ; 
on  the  grounds  of  Paul's  view  of 
the  law,  186. 

Greek  thought,  its  supposed  influence 
on  Paul,  56  sq. 

HAGAR  and  Sarah,  allegorical  treat- 
ment of,  by  Paul,  59  sq. 

Headship  of  Christ  over  the  Church 
and  the  world,  221  sq.,  321  sq. 

lleinrici,  on  the  meaning  of  2  Cor.  v. 
14  sq.,  233  ;  on  the  vicarious  work 
of  Christ,  242. 

Holsten,  on  Paul's  conversion,  3  sq. 

IDOLATRY,  a  perversion  of  true  re- 
ligion, 107. 

Imprisonment,  Epistles  of  the,  criti- 
cism of,  78  sq. ;  the  question  of  a 
second,  84;  bearing  of  the  Epis- 
tles of,  upon  Paul's  theology,  87, 
88 ;  their  Christological  character, 
92  sq. ;  Gnostic  elements  in,  92. 

Intermediate  state,  did  Paul  believe 
in  an,  358. 

JEWISH  doctrine  of  salvation,  Paul's 
polemic  against,  266,  267;  why  it 
could  never  give  complete  assur- 
ance of  peace  with  God,  292. 


Jewish  idea  of  death  in  contrast  to 
Paul's,  341. 

Jews,  their  responsibility  as  com- 
pared with  that  of  the  heathen, 
107;  their  sense  of  God,  111. 

Judgment,  the,  its  relation  to  the 
parousia,  350;  to  be  universal, 
356 ;  the  apparently  legal  view  of, 
in  Paul's  epistles,  359  sq. 

Justification,  forensic  conception  of, 
45 ;  negative  and  positive  proof  of, 
by  Paul,  47;  how  related  to  re- 
demption, 259;  Paul's  doctrine  of, 
connected  with  his  experience, 
259,260;  Jewish  doctrine  of,  260; 
a  succinct  statement  of  Paul'*  doc- 
trine of,  261 ;  motive  of  Paul's  doc- 
trine of,  265;  juridical  and  ethical 
views  of,  270  sq. ;  presentation  of, 
in  Romans,  272  sq. ;  the  formal 
and  the  real  principle  of,  275;  its 
relation  to  the  law's  requirement, 
277  sq. ;  its  relation  to  life-union 
with  Christ,  279  sq. ;  one-sided 
treatment  of,  in  theology,  285,  286; 
its  relation  to  sanctificntion,  286, 
287,  297;  not  a  mere  jint  of  God, 
288 ;  the  formal  and  the  ethical 
elements  of,  280. 

Justify,  meaning  of  the  word,  262, 
263." 


KAPPOHETH,   the,  whether  referred 

to  in  Rom.  iii.  25,  236. 
Kingdom  of  God,  its  eschatological 

meaning  in   Paul's   epistles,    319; 

its  relation  to  the  Church,  320,  321; 

its  consummation,  363  sq. 


LAW,  Paul's  experience  under,  12  sq. ; 
Paul's  new  view  of,  after  his  con- 
version, 71  sq. ;  Paul's  doctrine  of, 
160  sq.  ;  its  generic  and  specific 
sense,  160-163;  its  use  denoting  a 
force  or  principle,  164, 165 ;  denotes 
the  whole  Mosaic  system,  165  sq. ; 


880 


GENERAL  INDEX 


its  fulfilment  in  the  gospel,  166, 
167 ;  its  origin  and  nature,  167 ;  its 
subordinate  relation  to  the  gos- 
pel, 168;  different  treatment  of,  in 
Romans  and  Galatians,  168-171 ; 
the  doctrine  of,  developed  from 
a  Christological  standpoint,  171; 
Paul's  peculiar  doctrine  of,  how 
different  from  the  Jewish  idea, 
172  sq. ;  sense  in  which  it  increases 
sin,  177  sq.  ;  why  it  cannot  justify, 
179  sq. ;  roots  of  Paul's  doctrine 
of,  182  sq.  ;  how  Paul's  view  of  is 
to  be  adjusted  to  the  Jewish  view 
of,  191  sq. ;  his  doctrine  of,  how 
due  to  his  changed  view  of  Christ, 
192  sq. ;  abrogation  of,  in  Chris- 
tianity, 193  sq. ;  Paul's  twofold 
view  of,  301,  302. 

Life,  the  Christian,  Paul's  doctrine 
of,  292  sq.  ;  how  related  to  faith, 
293;  an  indwelling  in  Christ,  295 
sq. 

Lipsius'  Paul.  Rechtfertigiingslehre, 
commented  on,  ix. ;  on  justifica- 
tion, 271. 

Literature  of  Paulinism,  369  >q. 

Love,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  in  1  Cor. 
xiii.  304  sq. 

MARRIAGE,  Paul's  views  concerning, 
316  sq. 

Matheson,  on  Paul's  treatment  of 
slavery,  328,  329. 

Messiahship  of  Jesus,  relation  of,  to 
Paul's  conversion  and  theology, 
18;  relation  of,  to  Paul's  doctrine 
of  the  cross,  229. 

Meyer,  on  the  source  of  the  quotation 
in  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  64,  65;  on  the 
Tubingen  criticism  of  Paul's  epis- 
tles, 83;  his  paraphrase  of  Rom. 
ix.  22,  quoted,  117,  118;  on  ethical 
death  with  Christ,  131;  on  the  con- 
summation of  Christ's  redeeming 
work,  222;  on  the  vicarious  work 
of  Christ,  242. 


Mystical  realism  in  Paul,  52  sq.  ; 
mystical  elements  in  Paul's  doe- 
trine  of  the  atonement,  256  tq. 


NEANDER,  on  the  connection  between 
Paul's  Pharisaic  and  Christian  ex- 
perience, 14,  15;  on  the  Pauline 
anthropology,  159 ;  on  the  ques- 
tion why  the  law  cannot  justify, 
179,  180;  on  the  relation  of  faith 
to  a  holy  life,  290. 

Neander's  Planting  and  Training, 
importance  <  f,  for  the  study  of  the 
Pauline  theology,  ix. 


OFFICES,  in  the  Church,  324  sq. 

Old  Testament,  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion in,  45;  the  chief  text-book  of 
Paul,  58;  allegorical  interpretation 
of,  59  .•"/.  ;  its  Messianic  import, 
68 ; .  Paul's  new  view  of,  after  his 
conversion,  69  sq. 

PARALLEL,  Paul's  use  of,  46  sq. ;  pur- 
pose of  that  between  Adam  and 
Christ,  49 ;  that  between  the  natu- 
ral and  the  spiritual,  50. 

Parousia,  ideas  concerning  in  the 
Thessalonian  Epistles,  88,  89;  its 
place  in  the  Pauline  eschatology, 
344;  Paul's  expectation  of  its  oc- 
currence in  his  lifetime,  344 ;  dan- 
gerous inferences  drawn  by  some 
from  supposed  nearness  of,  340; 
expectation  of,  less  emphasized  in 
Paul's  later  epistles,  347;  relation 
of,  to  the  judgment,  350. 

Pastoral  Epistles,  criticism  of,  83  sq. ; 
their  relation  to  the  Pauline  theol- 
ogy, 86  sq. 

Paul,  his  acknowledged  pre-eminence 
in  his  age,  viii ;  influence  in  the 
early  Church,  1;  his  native  quali- 
ties, 1;  his  own  explanation  of  his 
work,  2;  his  conversion,  theories 


GENERAL  INDEX 


381 


respecting,  3  sq.  ;  has  no  scruples 
as  a  Pharisee,  9  sq. ;  his  pre-Chris- 
tian experience  in  its  relation  to 
his  conversion,  12  sq. ;  his  inner 
conflict  as  depicted  iu  Kom.  vii.,  16 ; 
his  call  to  his  life-work,  21;  his 
view  of  the  universality  of  the  gos- 
pel, 23;  as  a  writer  and  thinker, 
27  sq. ;  his  education,  54  sq. ;  his 
explanation  of  his  life-work,  72 sq. ; 
his  doctrine  of  revelation,  103  sq. ; 
his  idea  of  the  divine  purposes, 
111  sq.  ;  his  view  of  sin,  123  sq. ; 
his  doctrine  of  the  law,  160  sq. ;  his 
doctrine  of  Christ's  person,  199  sq.  ; 
his  doctrine  of  redemption,  227  sq.  ; 
his  doctrine  of  justification,  259  sq.  ; 
his  polemic  against  the  Jewish  doc- 
trine of  salvation,  266,  267;  his 
teaching  concerning  the  Christian 
life,  292  sq. ;  his  doctrine  of  love, 
304  sq. ;  of  the  State,  308,  309;  his 
treatment  of  cases  of  conscience, 
309  sq. ;  his  views  of  marriage  and 
divorce,  316  sq.  ;  his  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  319  sq. ;  his  attitude 
toward  slavery,  328,  329 ;  his  view 
of  the  place  and  function  of  woman, 
329,  330;  his  eschatology,  339  sq. ; 
his  doctrine  of  the  parousia,  344 
sq. ;  of  the  resurrection,  348  sq.  ; 
of  the  judgment,  359  sq. 

Personification,  use  of,  by  Paul, 
40  sq. 

Pfleiderer's  works  on  Paulinism, 
characterized,  ix  ;  his  view  of 
Paul's  conversion,  3  sq. ;  his  esti- 
mate of  psychological  theories  of 
Paul's  conversion,  19;  on  the  union 
of  Jewish  and  Hellenic  ideas  in 
Paulinism,  57;  his  view  of  Paul's 
doctrine  of  the  flesh,  140;  his  dis- 
tinctions respecting  the  use  of  the 
term  il  flesh,"  146,  147 ;  his  views  on 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  sinlessness 
of  Jesus,  209-211  ;  on  Christ's  pre- 
existence,  223,  224;  on  Christ's 
substitution,  241 ;  on  the  reckoning 


of  faith  for  righteousness,  269 ;  on 
Paul's  doctrine  of  the  judgment, 
3C1. 

Pharisees,  tenets  and  peculiarities  of, 
52  sq. 

Philo,  supposed  influence  of  on  Paul, 
56  sq. 

Predestination,  Paul's  doctrine  of, 
118  sq. 

Pre-existence  of  Christ,  223  sq. 

Psychological  theory  of  Paul's  con- 
version, 2  sq. ;  the  point  of  im- 
portance in  the  theory,  5 ;  element 
of  truth  in,  17. 


RABBINIC  thought,  its  influence  upon 
Paul,  55 ;  exegesis,  59  sq. 

Ransom-price,  the  figure  of,  in  appli- 
cation to  the  work  of  Christ,  235- 
240 ;  conception  of,  in  patristic  the- 
ology, 252. 

Realism,  Paul's  mystical,  32  sq. 

Reconciliation,  wrought  through 
Christ,  219  sq. 

Redemption,  Paul's  doctrine  of,  227 
sq. ;  exposition  of  Rom.  iii.  24-26 
in  its  bearing  upon,  235-240;  its 
relation  to  man's  past  and  to  his 
future.  340. 

Religion,  natural  to  man,  105 ;  Paul's 
personal  conception  of,  298,  303. 

Renan,  on  Paul's  influence  in  the 
Church,  viii. 

Resurrection,  of  Christ,  how  related 
to  his  saving  work,  254,  255;  Paul's 
doctrine  of,  in  1  Cor.  xv.,  348 :  the 
mode  of  the  general,  348,  349; 
the  resurrection-body,  349,  350; 
the  question  of  a  twofold,  350- 
354;  the  question  of  a,  for  unbe- 
lievers, 354-356;  from  what,  ac- 
cording to  Paul,  357. 

Reuss,  on  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  judg- 
ment, 361. 

Revelation,  in  Paul's  view,  universal, 
103 ;  made  through  conscience, 
104;  its  method  and  media,  108; 


382 


GENERAL  INDEX 


grounded  in  the  divine  nature, 
108  sq. 

Righteousness,  partial  personification 
of,  by  Paul,  40  sq. ;  forensic  con- 
ception of,  44,  45;  as  a  divine  at- 
tribute, 99  sq.  ;  not  in  conflict  with 
love  or  grace,  100  sq. ;  as  an  attri- 
bute of  God,  101,  10-2;  God's, 
manifested  in  the  death  of  Christ, 
237  sq. ;  how  satisfied  in  Christ's 
sufferings,  249  sq. ;  its  meaning  in 
Paul's  doctrine  of  justification, 
263,  264;  why  faith  is  reckoned 
for,  268  sq.  ;  how  faith  secures  the 
practical  attainment  of,  300. 

Ritschl,  his  view  of  the  origin  of 
Paul's  doctrine  respecting  Christ's 
pre-existence,  223;  on  Paul's  view 
of  the  judgment,  361. 

Romans,  the  Epistle  to,  the  main 
purpose  of  its  first  part,  47,  48; 
different  treatment  of  the  law  in, 
from  that  found  in  Galatians,  168 
sq. ;  Paul's  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion in,  272  sq. 


SABATIEK'S  definition  of  grace,  98. 

Sadducees,  their  tenets,  53. 

Sanctification,  relation  of  justification 
to,  286,  287,  297. 

Saul.     See  Paul. 

Schultz,  on  forensic  justification  in 
the  Old  Testament,  45. 

Schiirer,  on  the  source  of  the  quota- 
tion in  1  Cor.  ii.  9,  65. 

Scruples,  supposed,  of  Paul  in  regard 
to  his  course  as  a  persecutor,  9  sq. 

Shaping  forces  of  Paul's  teaching, 
52  sq. 

Sheol,  Jewish  conception  of,  341. 

Siegfried,  on  Paul  and  Philo,  56,  57. 

Sin,  Adam's,  relation  of  the  sin  of  all 
to,  37  sq. ;  the  believer's  death  to, 
33  sq. ;  quasi  personification  of  by 
Paul,  41,  42;  Paul's  doctrine  of, 
123  sq. ;  its  relation  to  the  fall, 
137  sq. ;  its  relation  to  the  flesh, 


139  sq. ;  (he  question  of  its  origin 
and  nature,  148  sq.;  its  relation  to 
the  will,  150  sq. ;  bearing  of  Eph. 
ii.  3  upon  the  problem  of,  152  sq.  ; 
death  the  penalty  of,  341. 

Sinlessness  of  Jesus,  Paul's  doctrine 
of,  209  sq. 

Slavery,  Paul's  view  of,  328,  329. 

State,  the,  Paul's  doctriue  of,  308, 
309. 

Strauss'  theory  of  Paul's  conver- 
sion, 3. 

Style,  Paul's,  27  sq. ;  its  Hebraistic 
coloring,  27;  digressions,  28;  ana- 
col  tit  lia,  29;  paronomasia,  29,  30; 
vivacity  and  power  of,  30. 

Substitution,  Christ's,  in  what  sense 
taught  by  Paul,  241-243;  why  it 
avails  for  man's  salvation,  243  sq. ; 
of  his  sufferings  for  man's  punish- 
ment, 249,  250. 

Sufferings  of  Christ,  in  what  sense 
penal,  245  sq. ;  a  substitute  for 
punishment,  249,  250. 

Supernatural  view  of  Paul's  conver- 
sion, 6  .'•'/. 

Supper,  the  Lord's,  in  the  early 
Church,  335-338. 


TARGUMS,  expressions  of,  respecting 
sin,  125. 

Thayer's  Lexicon;  definition  of  the 
term  "flesh,"  147. 

Theology ;  for  the  Pauline,  see  Paul, 
and  references  to  special  topics ; 
its  usual  treatment  of  Rom.  v.  12- 
21,  49. 

Thessnlonian  Epistles,  the  criticism 
of,  78  #?. ;  their  connection  with 
Paul's  missionary  preaching,  88 
sq. 

Thought,  peculiar  Pauline  modes  of, 
31  sq. ;  mystical  type  of,  32  sq. ; 
personification,  40  sq. ;  use  of  anal- 
ogy, 43  sq. ;  parallelism,  46  sq. 

Tubingen  criticism  of  the  Pauline 
epistles,  77  «g. 


GENERAL  INDEX 


383 


UNIVERSALITY  of  the  gospel ;  connec- 
tion of  this  idea  with  Paul's  con- 
version, 23. 

Usteri,  on  the  inability  of  the  law  to 
justify,  180,  181. 


VISION-HYPOTHESIS  of  Paul's  con- 
version, 7  sq. ;  untenableness  of,  20. 

Visions  of  Paul,  distinguished  from 
his  conversion,  20. 


WEISS,  his  Biblical  Thtoloyy,  as  an 
aid  to  the  study  of  Pauliuism,  ix; 
on  the  conflict  described  in  Rom. 
vii.,  15;  on  Paul's  style,  30;  on 
Paul's  quotations,  67, 68 ;  his  views 
of  Paul's  doctrine  of  election,  115. 
116;  his  paraphrase  of  Eph.  ii.  3, 


156 ;  on  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
pre-existence,  225,  226;  on  Christ's 
substitutionary  work,  241;  on  jus- 
tification, 278;  on  the  relation  of 
faith  to  righteousness,  289  ;  his  dis- 
sociation of  justification  irom  sanc- 
tification,  295 ;  on  Paul's  doctrine 
of  the  judgment,  361. 

Weizsaeker,  on  the  meaning  of 
"  flesh  "  in  Paul's  epistles,  147. 

Wisdom.  Book  of,  its  supposed  in- 
fluence upon  Paul's  doctrine,  57, 
58. 

Woman,  Paul's  view  of  the  place  and 
function  of,  329,  330. 

Wrath,  the  divine,  99. 


ZELLER,  on  Paul's  "scruples"  as  a 
persecutor,  16. 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


HECTO  LD-URl 

OCT091M4 

i  I992 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


